Since my major is rehabilitation and human services, I thought that the particular topic of prisons approaches to rehabilitation was interesting. In the criminal justice system today, there are many different issues that should be addressed. One that I find to be major is the rehabilitation in prison. Therapeutic communities are very necessary in the society today to assure that everyone gets the help they need no matter the circumstance. People who are convicted often become mad at the system, and do not want to get the help they need through rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after or during imprisonment, addiction or illness. Simply put, rehabilitation is needed to help people get back on their feet, so that they can live their lives to their full potentials. Therapeutic communities are holistic residential environments that are designed to promote the personal growth and development of the residents (Schneider, 2012, pg 269.) With this being said these communities in prisons provide opportunities for offenders to experience a highly structured setting that models a cooperative prosocial environment. (Schneider, 2012, pg 269.)

Prison therapeutic communities have been implemented into many states, this is good because it gives the offenders the opportunity to get the help they need in the rehabilitation process. “Convicts argue against the rehabilitation effect of incarceration because it is inconceivable that they could do otherwise. Inmates submit to imprisonment unwillingly and they find it unpleasant.” (Tittle, 1974). With this being said, the inmates or people who are convicted to not want to get the rehabilitation that is needed for them to have a better life because they are angry that they were put in jail. Along with not wanting to do the rehabilitation, “inmates manipulate prison staffs by complaining of the contradiction between custodial and rehabilitative functions and by criticizing the failure of prisons to live up to their ideals.” (Tittle, 1974). This simply means that the inmates do not think that the rehabilitation services they are getting meet their standards, and they don’t want to continue with them because of that.

I believe that we as a society need to come up with a solution to this problem. People need rehabilitation for a reason. Even if inmates are fighting to get the help they need, I believe that we need to find a way to get them to participate in the rehabilitation. Doing this will help them in the long run, as when they do get out of prison, it will help them get back to the life they once had.
References:

Tittle, C. R. (1974). Prisons and rehabilitation: The inevitability of disfavor. Social Problems, 385-395.

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

The overall performance and productivity of organizations can be affected by different factors, though the most critical one is employees, as they make up the only driving force for fostering positive changes and achieving organizations’ strategic objectives regardless of the industry of operation and the number of people involved. For this reason, it is crucial to understand what affects employees and their performance, and one concept that can be used for assessing it is job satisfaction. What is special about job satisfaction is the fact that it is a multi-dimensional phenomenon influenced by numerous different factors, but it is one of the main determinants of employee productivity.

In general terms, the concept of job satisfaction can be defined as a unique set of attitudes towards and perceptions of one’s workplace including different aspects of the working conditions as well as organizational policies. These aspects include but are not limited to promotion-related opportunities, leadership and management, colleagues, and job duties characteristic of a particular position (Schneider, Gruman, & Couts, 2012). As it has been mentioned, job satisfaction is a multi-dimensional concept, and it is especially true in case of viewing it from the perspective of the facet approach to defining this term. In this way, different facets of job satisfaction are assessed to obtain a clear understanding of employees’ attitude towards their work environment, which is usually measured from dissatisfied to satisfied. As for the facets, the commonly estimated ones are the following: pay, benefits, nature of work, supervision, relations with coworkers, managers, and leaders, and numerous others that are critical for a separately considered organization. Regardless of the intricateness of this approach, organizations are recommended to use it because they might find out what the main concerns experienced by their employees are and address them properly in case the leaders are interested in the continuity of cooperation and employee loyalty and dedication.

Due to the multi-dimensional nature of the phenomenon, job satisfaction is as well affected and predetermined by different factors. In order to obtain a better understanding of these factors, they can be divided into several main groups. The first one is a general group consisting of job characteristics. It incorporates five determinants: task identity, skill variety, autonomy, job feedback, and task significance (Schneider et al., 2012). It is usually believed to be the most vital facet of job satisfaction because the nature of the job is more critical than pay-related benefits and communication and relations among colleagues because it determines the opportunities for personal growth and development that commonly keep employees motivated. The second group of factors is labeled as organizational also known as social. These incorporate promotion opportunities, interpersonal relations (including the effectiveness of communication patterns), and social influence process. Finally, personal dispositions make up another group of factors influencing job satisfaction. They include personal traits, such as self-esteem, locus of control, emotional stability, and self-efficacy (Schneider et al., 2012). The impact of these factors on job satisfaction is the least prominent compared to other identified and described.

The criticality of the concept of job satisfaction is associated with its impact on an organization. Specifically, job satisfaction results in positive consequences, while job dissatisfaction is directly connected to negative developments. All of them can be divided into two overarching concepts – employee behaviors and performance. The first one is connected to the likelihood of either avoiding work or increased dedication. In addition, it is related to turnover intentions, with job satisfaction as resulting in lower turnover rates and job dissatisfaction causing more frequent turnover intentions. As for employee performance, higher levels of job satisfaction are generally connected to improved performance.

All in all, the connection between job satisfaction and job performance does exist, though it has not been proven statistically as the universally existing cause-and-effect relation. Nevertheless, the existence of this connection seems logical based on both theoretical information and personal experiences. Before my accident I worked multiple different jobs at different times and I was lucky enough to be able to communicate with people employed by different companies and occupying different positions – from ordinary employees to team leads and senior managers. As I discussed this exact topic in general conversation with some of them, they did support the belief that the overall job satisfaction is connected with the desire to work harder and be a source of benefits for the organization that makes their employees happy. More than that, one of the senior managers even told that he kept changing places until he was totally satisfied with all facets of job satisfaction that were of importance to him – benefits and rewards system, the nature of the job (specifically, the challenging character of all tasks), interpersonal relations and the overall atmosphere in the workplace.

Another point that I found interesting is that job satisfaction is not the only vital factor affecting employees. What was even more significant is the interest of the leadership and senior management to improve the level of employees’ job satisfaction. Specifically, if organizations collected feedback on job satisfaction (surveys developed based on facet approach) and made effort to address the concerns, the overall improvement in employee performance was the consequence of fostering any changes because employees felt that they were valued. Summing up, job satisfaction is one of the vital determinants of high employee performance and their exceptional productivity. Even though this connection is commonly questioned, the conclusion made based on the theory and practice is uniform – this link does exist, and it does benefit organizations if they recognize the how critical job satisfaction really is.

References:

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

Often characterized as entitled, lazy, and less driven then their parents and their grandparents, millennials (like most incoming generations) have garnered a bad reputation in terms of their workplace conduct. A flood of negative media surrounding how millennials interact with each other, their general attitudes and their affliction with technology exists. However, millennials are slowly shifting the dynamics of the workplace, and it’s arguably for the better.

Millennials are considered one of the most compassionate and ethical generations and by the year 2025, millennials will comprise approximately 75% of the workforce (Pepperdine, 2017). The manner in how Americans conduct their work is about to completely shift with the coming influx of millennial workers. Unlike their baby boomer counterparts, millennials value more flexibility and employability as opposed to job security (Pepperdine, 2017).  Millennials are forecast to change the way we work, allowing for increased worker flexibility in all areas of the workforce.

Not only will millennials change the way we work, they are also going to change the way we perceive and conceptualize the workplace. As millennials infiltrate and dominate the work force, less emphasis will be placed on “brick and mortar” work centers, and more workers will be utilizing off-site work spaces including remote work. NBC News (2017) reports that “optimal engagement boost occurs when employees spend 60 to 80 percent of their time, or 3 to 4 days a week, working remotely”. Not only does this save businesses money on office space, it can also increase productivity.

In addition to transforming where we do work, millennials are also shifting the power structures within organizations. Generationally speaking, millennials are more driven by mentors and coaches than by bosses. This differing expectation in what a boss should be could eventually change how leaders act, emphasizing collaboration instead of an organizational dictatorship.

Millennials, the most technologically literate and educated generation thus far, are bound to dynamically shift the work center as we know it; becoming better innovators and equalizing the playing field for all workers.

References:

The Importance of Millennials in the Workplace. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https://mbaonline.pepperdine.edu/resources/infographics/the-importance-of-millennials-in-the-workplace/

Steinhilber, B. (2017, May 18). 7 ways millennials are changing the workplace for the better. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/7-ways-millennials-are-changing-workplace-better-n761021

A great example of a personal account dealing with this blog topic is when I enrolled in my first semester at Penn State World Campus. This was the fall semester of 2016 and this event actually happened to me right before I started school. I had applied to Penn State World Campus at the end of June. My manager went on maternity leave a week or so before I applied to school. In her mind there was no reason to assume that I would not be a full-time worker by the time she came back in mid-August. This, unfortunately for her was not the case.

I got my acceptance letter very quickly. It was the second week of July, I believe. I immediately let my district manager know that I would only be working part-time once school started. I guess my manager, (actual manager, not district), was never informed of my decision to enroll in school before she came back.

It was now mid-August and school was starting in a week. My manager, Brandi, came back from maternity leave and little did I know but she was upset that I was going to part-time status. She pulled me to the side on her second day back to speak with me. She asked me what was going on. I explained to her that I was going back to school. I explained that this was a big deal for my future and I wanted her to be happy for me. She said that she was happy for me but didn’t understand why I could only work part time since my schooling was online.

Without going into detail I simply told her that school is my priority now and if I work full time then it will have a negative result on my school work. She simply said ok but it was clear that she didn’t understand me or “believe” me. She just didn’t seem satisfied, I could tell from her body language. From our text, we learn that body language is a form of “non-verbal communication” which “refers to all information conveyed by a sender, apart from the words themselves, that plays a role in transmission of meaning.” (Scheider, Gruman, and Coutts. Applied Social Psychlogy: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems, 2012). This affected me afterward because I could tell there was tension at the end of our conversation. It felt like she wasn’t getting my point and I was not getting her point. We just weren’t communicating effectively.

Because of the tension I thought she might want to fire me if I didn’t agree to work full-time. She didn’t understand why I needed to go to part-time and I couldn’t understand why she didn’t see that I needed the extra time to do well in school, to secure my future.

When someone communicates with another person one of them is the sender of information and the other is the receiver of information; the roles may switch multiple times but each party can only be one of the two at a time. The sender is responsible for “encoding” the message; which means that the message is “constructed from the sender’s thoughts, and transformed in to a communicable form.” (Schneider et al., 2012). Once the message is delivered the receiver decodes the message to gain meaning in the sender’s message. If there are breakdowns during either process then miscommunication results. Come to find out, we both weren’t being good encoders or decoders. The whole time I knew I would be taking sixteen credits but she thought that I was just taking one class.

Sixteen credits is a large workload whether you’re online or going to class. She assumed that I was taking one class, maybe two. If we had been better talkers and listeners, one of us would have realized that we are not talking about just one class but a full semester of classes. Not only did I fail to encode my message to her with the information of how many credits I was taking; she did not decode well enough to assume something that should have been obvious (I was talking about more than one class). She also did not properly encode the message with the information that she thought I was only taking one class and my decoding skills failed to recognize that there HAS TO BE a valid reason she did not understand why I needed to go part-time.

I thought she was being irrational and she thought the same about me! Why did we automatically believe the worst about each other? Instead of thinking of external factors to explain each-other’s behaviors (me requesting part-time status and her getting upset about it), we applied the behaviors to the individual personalities’ of the other party (I assumed she was being a selfish boss and she assumed I was being a lazy worker). This is known as the fundamental attribution error; the tendency “to underestimate the influence of external or situational factors and to overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors when we judge the behaviors of other people.” (Schneider, 2012)

I never communicated the details of my situation; she filled in the gaps for herself. Then she never communicated what she thought my situation was. If we had spoken more clearly in our meeting then there never would have been the tension between us. Understanding of my natural “biases in attribution” will help me to avoid situations like this in the future.

Reference:

Schneider et al., Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Sage Publications, Inc. 2012

Kruger, Justin et al.. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89(6). Dec. 2005. pp. 925-936.

Running a business is hard work.  It involves effective communication, time management, role participation, account management, and group collaboration in order to make it all work.   Not only do these elements describe assets of running a business, they also outline the necessities of managing a successful household.  Contrary to the popular belief that moms can do it all, a successful home takes every member pulling their weight and doing what they can to help balance the everyday needs of the people living within the home, much like a team contributes its individual strengths from each player to succeed in its goals.

One key part of running a household is effective communication.  I think it is safe to say that many of us have heard about or experienced ourselves the text message from someone’s spouse that is misinterpreted.  After all, it is tough to read the voice of a text message if it is not encoded properly. The encoding process of sending a text can mean the difference between an evening of relaxation with the one you love and a rather hefty purchase from the local florist. Encoding is described as the construction of a sender’s thoughts and the transmission of said thoughts to a communicable form (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  When text messages are sent, many times they are simple small pieces of the puzzle.  A husband’s simple “yea” in response to a long message from a wife can be perceived as uncaring or nonchalant about the subject at hand, especially if it’s a meaningful subject to her.  Meanwhile, what the original sender does not know is that the responder is sitting in traffic that stretches for 10 miles and is currently at a standstill, late for a meeting with his boss.  This is where the fundamental attribution error rears itself and the wife might credit the “uncaring response” to an internal trait of her husband rather than his situation. The fundamental attribution error is described as “a phenomenon that stems from the fact that it is usually far easier to explain others’ action in terms of their personal dispositions than to be award or and recognize the complex pattern of situational factors that may have affected their actions (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Ensuring communication is flowing and open is key to making sure there is not room for misinterpretation, and if there is, correcting it as soon as possible.

Another key factor in making a household team work is understanding the hierarchy of the household.  Much like a business, there is a supervisor or two (they could be compared to business partners in the business model).  Typically the supervisor is “mom and dad”.  Mom and dad oversee that directions are followed, tasks are completed, and “company morale” remains high.  After all, people don’t like to work for free so in order to keep that motivation up for completing tasks, there helps to be a little bit of reward for it, such as a “paycheck” or an allowance for completing chores, special dinners for great report cards, and of course every accomplishment such as “student of the week” is celebrated in some way.

Each member in a household typically has their own role.  These roles might be reviewed weekly while gathered around a kitchen table.  The meeting can serve a relationship role as new assignments and weekly schedules are reviewed (Nelson, A. 2018).  Each kiddo might have a new activity going on and its important, especially in larger families, to make sure that each family member, or team member, knows and understands the weeks expectations.  Some kiddos might have large projects to complete for school so again, it’s important to be able to manage time throughout the week and know what the schedule looks like.  This meeting that serves that relationship role can be run by any team member that holds some power over the schedule (i.e. mom or dad).

Sometimes, however within a team or group there is role conflict in which contradictory messages from different people occur (Nelson, A. 2018).  In a business this may look like a team member getting different directions about a project from two different supervisors or higher team members.  With regard to a household team, this could look like mom telling a kiddo one thing, and dad telling them another with regard to the same task or time slot. For instance, if mom tells a kiddo they need to finish their chores, but dad comes in and tells the same kiddo to go outside and play, the child is then faced with making a decision based on two different directions from people of the same amount of power.  Many times this conflict can be quickly resolved with open communication, perhaps the child responds with “mom asked me to finish my chores before I do anything else”.  Dad might respond “oh okay, finish up and then go outside and play.”  This is a very simple example of course, but the main idea here is that every team is susceptible to role conflict in some way.

As children get older and are able to take on more responsibility, the formation of a household team really comes together.  Each member is able to understand, embrace, and value their role within the household team.   Not only does it make the everyday tasks run smoother, it helps the “business” to grow and learn about responsibility, communication, and then of course, the absolute fun side of being part of a family.  Not every day is about work or chores though.  Plenty of time should be taken to let loose and have some fun of course.

Schneider, Frank. Gruman, Jaime. Coutts, Larry. Applied Social Psychology. Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. 2012.

Nelson, A. (2018). Lesson 7 Commentary. Organizational Life and Teams. Retrieved 25 February 2018 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682604

This week we took a closer look at power and the different types of power. For my blog this week I want to keep it in the theme of power. More specifically I wanted to look at power in the workplace and the hierarchy that it creates.

Most workplaces have a pyramid hierarchy where there are a few top leaders, then different amounts of mid-level leaders, then a lot of base employees (“How Important is Workplace Hierarchy”). This type of hierarchy has been proven to have many positive effects on businesses. This is because work is performed most efficiently when there are many people who are working towards one common goal. A hierarchy in a work place also employs unity, those at the same level work together at the instruction of the people above them who work together at the instruction at the people above them and so on. This also creates different authority at different levels. The authority, or power, that a person has in their workplace depends on what level of the hierarchy they are at (“How Important is Workplace Hierarchy”).  If a person is at the lowest level of the hierarchy, then their desire for power may influence them to do more efficient work so that they can move further up the hierarchy. Those at the top of the hierarchy are influenced not to abuse their authority because then they might lose their power, so in a way a workplace hierarchy has checks and balances.

An example that shows this type of workplace hierarchy in action is my boyfriend and his job. He has not even been at his job for a year yet and is in one of the base positions you can start out in, or in other words is at the bottom level of the hierarchy. His desire is to move upwards in the hierarchy so that he can make more money, have better health insurance benefits, make more of a difference within the company, and improve his work experience. This desire to move upwards means that he is always working above and beyond so that he will be noticed by his superiors for when a job opening comes up. Now the way his hierarchy works is that he has a supervisor who is directly in charge of him as well as about twenty more employees who are at the same level as my boyfriend. However, although this man is directly in charge of my boyfriend, he is not the one who would be making the recommendation when it comes time for the company to move my boyfriend to a more superior job. This supervisor’s boss who is directly above him and is in charge of about five other supervisors just like him, will be the one who makes the call about moving my boyfriend upward. This shows that even though the supervisor has some power over my boyfriend, the supervisor’s boss has power over him and therefore has even more power over my boyfriend and his future at the company. This example shows how power comes to play in a common workplace hierarchy.

References:

“How Important Is Workplace Hierarchy.” Bright HR, 2018, www.brighthr.com/brightbase/topic/culture-and-performance/corporate-hierarchy/how-important-is-workplace-hierarchy.

One of the primary focuses of anyone that has ever been a manager of people, or in Human Resources is job satisfaction. Many organizations will survey their employees annually on job satisfaction. If done properly, they will also come up with an action plan post-survey to address the things causing dissatisfaction for employees. It has long been commonly believed that a happy employee is a productive employee. I remember some of my first jobs as a teenager (Dairy Queen and Fleet Farm) where if someone wasn’t happy with the job they were doing, the compensation they were receiving, or with a manager that they reported to they would leave and find another job. These jobs also employed staff that had been there ‘forever’ even though they could probably get a better paying job elsewhere. Did they stay because they were loyal, comfortable, or were they really satisfied with their job?

There are many dynamics to job satisfaction and different aspects to measure: pay, benefits, relationship with supervisor or manager, ability to grow within the company, work environment and conditions, and connection with coworkers. The impact that a job has on the organization is one of the more important aspects of job satisfaction. If the role is meaningful and impactful then and it is challenging and allows the employee to grow personally, they are more likely to be satisfied with their job. Social factors are also a contributing factor to satisfaction. Just like the power of attraction, if an employee is continuously exposed to negative opinions they are more likely to feel negatively, and if they are surrounded by positive comments they are more likely to be satisfied (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012).  Misery loves company, and positivity attracts positivity. As stated above however, a commonly believed thought was that happy employees are productive employees. Though easy to believe, this is actually not accurate. Studies were unable to conclusively show causation between satisfaction and productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, Patton, 2001).

In Human Resources, we often hear and read that an employee doesn’t leave an organization, they leave their supervisor. Though I don’t believe this is always the case, it is a highly impactful relationship that is a deciding factor on whether someone chooses to stay at an organization or not. I’ve received several resignation notices in my time as an HR Manager – most say something along the lines of…I appreciate the opportunity I had to work for the organization but have accepted a job elsewhere. When we complete an exit survey the reason stated in the notice is rarely the real reason they are choosing to leave.

In the cases where the employee is choosing to leave the organization because of the manager or supervisor there are a few different possibilities. One, the manager or supervisor could just be a jerk. I always hope this is not the case. We put a lot of faith in our managers and expect them to be respectful, fair, appropriate and effective. As discussed in the lesson however, power has a tendency to alter a person into thinking that they are superior to others, and disparage their employees. Therefore, this is always a possibility.  Another possibility is conceptual filters and communication barriers. Conceptual filters are “attitudes, cognitions, and perceptions that may distort information exchange (Schneider, et al., 2012). In order to not be overwhelmed by all incoming information, our mind has learned to decide what is important to us and disregard the rest. This can cause problems in the interactions and communication between managers and supervisors and their employees. Assessment of performance is also not accurate due to the human nature of superiours putting too much weight on internal factors of their employees affecting work versus external factors. If an employee was not able to complete all of their tasks prior to the end of their shift – a common response is that the employee is not working fast or efficiently enough to be able to complete the task, even though it may have been a particularly busy shift and there just wasn’t enough time to do everything. Where the manager believes the employee is unable to do the job effectively, the employee also tends to place more weight on external factors when receiving criticism. Not only can this cause a wedge, but there is also the possibility that the employee does not understand the full expectations of the manager.

Trying to balance the expectations of the manager and the perceptions of employees is a full-time job. The best approach in both situations is to look at it with a positive attitude. Too often people look at a situation thinking that something was done on purpose or maliciously, when a majority of people are reasonable and just trying to do their best. Everyone makes mistakes. When managers and employees are able to have a common performance language and clear expectations and communication – There will not be perceptual biases in the workplace. This would contribute to a more satisfactory environment for all involved.

References

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2018). PSYCH 424 Lesson 7: Organizational Life and Teams. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682601

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

The workplace dynamic has changed dramatically over the years and can vary depending on the field. One thing that remains constant across all fields and time is the level of productivity of employees within an organization. As with parenting, many individuals have various ideas about what effective management is and how to boost productivity. One major consensus of professionals in business and organisational psychology is that a happy worker is, in most cases, a productive one. This emphasis of happiness in the workplace is still a work in progress but there is much evidence to support its methods.

In a 2011 issue of Leader to Leader, an article discusses Shawn Achor the CEO and founder of Good Think, Inc. and his efforts in researching what makes a happy work environment. Many people enter the workforce believing that in order to be happy, they must first be successful. However, Achor believes that it is actually the inverse (“Leader to Leader”, 2011). This suggests that many people might be chasing their tails in their current jobs by seeking the wrong results. This could explain why many who seek success over happiness in an effort to gain happiness cannot find it. According to Achor, “The greatest competitive advantage in the modern economy is a positive and engaged workforce.” He suggests that creating a sense of “rational optimism”, meaning seeing the good and the bad and building a healthy sense of optimism off of the whole picture will help a team overcome big challenges. 

The author also stresses the importance of social support in the workplace. Achor makes a very poignant point in that “In an era of do–more–with–less, we need to stop lamenting how little social support we feel from managers, coworkers and friends, and start focusing our brain’s resources upon how we can increase the amount of social support we provide to the people in our lives. The greatest predictor of success and happiness at work is social support. And the greatest way to increase social support is to provide it to others.” It is almost as common sense as the golden rule and yet a commonly overlooked simple technique to create a more supportive work environment.

These beliefs play into the concept of social/organisational factors that affect job satisfaction. Per the textbook, “employees develop their levels of job satisfaction based on the information available to them, including the immediate social environment,” (Schneider, et. al., 2012). Fostering an optimistic and socially supportive work environment can aid in reducing turnover and increasing overall employee retention rates.

References:
The importance of happiness in the workplace. (2011). Leader to Leader, 2012(63), 62-63. doi:10.1002/ltl.20012

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

In 2017, I read about the toxic workplace culture of Uber. Stories of sexual harassment and aggressive leadership style of the company were all over the major media outlets. Personally, I really enjoy using Uber ever since I discovered it. Because every driver is rated by his or her customers, the service quality is much better compared to regular yellow and green cab services in the city. The pricing is much cheaper too. With all the benefits of Uber, after reading about this scandal, I started trying out other apps, such as Juno or Lift. After using them, I went back to using Uber because the app is just so much less glitchy than other apps. But every time I use it, I feel guilty for supporting a company which is essentially built by a jerk and run by a group of jerks.

After reading this article, I could not help but wonder, if the bro-ish toxic culture of Uber and a lot of other corporations with bad workplace culture is caused by too much testosterone in the management? So I did some research and unsurprisingly, most corporations nowadays are run by men. According to Center for American Progress, while women earn 60 percent of college degrees and master’s degrees, only 6% of the CEOs are women. When there is a lack of female voices in the leadership, no surprise that companies like Uber are being run like a frat house.

According to market research firm Gallup, women are better managers because they are better at engaging employees and encouraging employees to explore their potentials. Also, a Harvard Business Review survey shows that women demonstrate more effective leadership. So is hiring more women to the leadership position the answer to better workplace culture and leadership? I believe the answer is yes. I believe balanced power dynamics can’t be achieved without gender balance in the workplace.

I really enjoyed listening to the podcast of Professor Sutton talking about the No Asshole Rule in the workplace. In a New York Magazine article published in 2017, Professor Sutton stated that 2017 is a year of assholes, with news about certified assholes such as Uber, Martin Shkreli, Fox News, Steve Bannon rising to the public’s attention. He also said that unfortunately nasty behaviors spread more quickly than nice behaviors in the workplace. With all the wife beaters and pussy grabbers in the current administration, we should be cautious about the trickle down effect of asshole culture into the workplaces all over the United States.

References:

1. Isaac, M. (2017, February 22). Inside Uber’s Aggressive, Unrestrained Workplace Culture. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html
2. Corley, J. W. (n.d.). The Women’s Leadership Gap. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/05/21/432758/womens-leadership-gap/
3. Smith, J. (2015, April 03). Study finds women are better bosses than men – here’s why. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-women-are-better-managers-than-men-2015-4
4. Folkman, J. Z. (2014, July 23). Are Women Better Leaders than Men? Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2012/03/a-study-in-leadership-women-do
5. Images, D. A. (2017, September 20). This Stanford Professor Has a Theory on Why 2017 Is Filled With Jerks. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/robert-sutton-asshole-survival-guide.html

References

Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations; Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead

Nelson, A. (2018). Lesson 7 : Organizational Life and Teams. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682604

In order for any team or organization to perform successfully communication amongst that team must happen. Communication is a key factor in every successful team. The team members must work together effectively, and have a common goal to reach. If there is bad communication amongst the team then the team will not be able to perform to its best ability to reach that common goal. So what is this communication that I speak of?

“Communication is defined as interpersonal acts that exchange meaning and information”(Schneider, et. al, 2012). Along with this definition, we have a definition that relates to effective communication in sports teams. “This refers to those interactions that enhance the operation of the team and its members. For instance messages between team members that result in improved team performance or more satisfied players would be considered effective communication because they contribute to a better functioning team.”(Schneider, et. al, 2012)

I have been involved with many sports teams throughout my life time. I started playing sports when I was five years old, and now at twenty two I am still on a team. With this being said, I know on a personal level how communication can make or break a team. This meaning that if there is no effective communication than the team will not succeed. I was on a team once where no one could get along. It was my high school soccer team. There were many different cliques, and the cliques could not get along with one another. Therefore, communication between the entire team was lost, and we had no real form of effect communication. On the field, we did not communicate with one another, and basically were just playing individually. This resulted us into losing every game that season. This made me realize just how important communication is between teammates. Soccer is one hundred percent a team sport, and you cannot perform well without the help of your teammates. If the team is fighting, and not communication with one another, then how are you supposed to be successful together? This also makes it a terrible experience. Playing on a team with no communication makes it very difficult to have fun. Sports are supposed to be fun and you are supposed to enjoying playing, but with no communication it can become draining and no fun.

An example of a team that I was on who has effective communication is my current softball team at Penn State Abington. We are so good at communication with one another that we untimely think of each other as a second family. Our communication skills both on and off the field are very good, and we support each other no matter the situation. In result of this, we are a very successful team. We not only make playoffs every year, but we succeed well in the playoffs too. With this being said, I know that communication is a key to perform well within a team.

In conclusion, effective communication very much so relates to how teams perform. In order for a team to be able to perform to its best ability, and meet their end goal of winning games, that team must be able to communicate well with on another both on and off the field. If communication is lost or not present, the team cannot work together to meet their goals and it becomes very unsuccessful.

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

Growing up, I was involved in every sport I could play from kindergarten until my junior year of high school. These sports included basketball, tennis, and softball. My true passion was playing softball which I did for fifteen years until being injured my senior year. Being a person with high social anxiety, playing sports allowed me to not only find my place on the field, but also a place among my peers. In those moments that my team and I were engaged in battle with our opponents, my social anxiety ceased to exist, and my only focus was on helping my team in any way possible.

The core meaning of a team is a group of people working towards a common goal (Nelson, 2018). Each member of the team carries a unique group role, and this role serves a specific purpose within a team. For me, these roles were very apparent when I played softball. Each member of my team played a specific position and had different responsibilities. For example, being the catcher, it was my responsibility to know the other team’s batting order, and signal in the appropriate pitching sequences to my pitcher. This task was different from that of our center fielder. She had the job to know when to shift the outfield for certain batters. Even the players on the bench had roles, while not actively being out on the field. They often lead silly cheers while we were on offense to boost morale of the team.

So, wait, how does teenagers playing softball relate to forming teams in the work place? These two topics have quite a bit in common. Teams found within the work place hold a common goal of having members work together to achieve a common goal. This goal could be in the form of meeting a certain quota for selling products, or it could be working together to form an important sales pitch to a buyer. Roles within work teams are also like roles found within a softball team. Employees that engage in doing actual tasks like creating a PowerPoint for the presentation or crafting the products that will be sold are fulfilling task roles within a group (Nelson, 2018). In my example, my teammate that played centerfielder was completing a task role by playing in the game. The member of my team that were not actively in the game, but rather cheered us on from the bench were executing relationship roles (Nelson, 2018). This can be done in the workplace when coworkers communicate with one another to improve or maintain connections with one another.

Playing sports taught me many lessons growing up that I use in everyday life. I learned that hard work and practice do pay off. I learned that when I feel like giving up, I need to push through it most times, because trying is better than quitting. It also taught me the value of each person within the team, and that communication is needed to achieve a team’s common goal. For having been a team player my entire life, I have been able to transfer what I learned about working together on the ball field into working together in the office.

Reference:

Nelson, A. (2018). Lesson 7 : Organizational Life and Teams. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682604

At one point or another, most of us have probably experienced a lack of recognition for a job well done. Instead, it may have been that no matter how hard we tried, we never seemed to get the attention of our boss. For example, Mr. Smith, who is always slacking off but sucking up as much as possible, may get the VP promotion over Mr. Stein. Mr. Stein puts in many hours, always gets feedback from his customers but has constructively challenged authority to foster new ideas. Unfortunately for Mr. Stein, his previous behavior may be costing him that next promotion. In fact, his behavior may drastically influence all future interactions that he may have with his supervisor. But why would this be?

This could be happening due to two different concepts, both of which operate under the idea of a perceptual bias, with the first being selective perception and the second being the halo effect. To understand how each of these can influence managerial decisions, it is important to first define a perceptual bias and then define selective perception and the halo effect. Perceptual biases are errors that disrupt and distort the perceptual process, thus leading to faulty judgements. These can occur because we, as humans, attempt to create shortcuts of understanding. Attempting to analyze every detail of behavior would require too many cognitive resources; as such, we sometimes rely on assumptions to fill in missing information (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). In other words, we may not always have the full picture and will then rely upon previous experience to piece everything together. Sometimes, this process works as it should, helping to protect us from danger for example. Other times, this process operates inefficiently and may be causing us to act in ways we normally would not.

Now that you have a better understanding of a perceptual bias, selective perception can be examined. Have you ever been in a situation where you were the one scolded for doing something wrong, even though every other staff member did it? Worse yet, you were scolded again, after the original issue, for something completely different? Come to find out, again, everyone did the same thing, yet you were still the one to get punished. Why is this? It could be attributed to selective perception. This is when a manager is only able to see one piece of the whole picture at any given time (Schneider et al., 2012). That manager is selectively perceiving a specific occurrence. The reason for this is that it is impossible to take in everything happening at every given time; thus, a manager must find a way to essentially make sense of what they can see. In this case, they are punishing you because their past experience shows that you have made mistakes. As such, that manager may think that you will have a higher occurrence of issues and continue to watch you more closely than others. This leads into another type of perceptual bias, the halo effect. This can occur when a manager creates a general impression of an employee, specifically based upon a single characteristic. Within the work setting, this is most likely to show up on a performance appraisal (Schneider et al., 2012). For example, if an associate comes off as negative to the manager, he or she could receive a poor review because the manager may see everything they do as negative, even if they actually have a lot of job knowledge and skill. Additionally, there is the chance for the similar-to-me effect to occur, which is when an employee is perceived as much better than they actually are because they are very similar to the manager appraising them (Schneider et al., 2012).

The above scenarios demonstrate that perceptual biases can occur across a variety of situations; however, what actually influences them? To answer that, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of a few studies. Dearborn and Simon (1958) demonstrated that industrial executives did utilize selective perception, specifically in aspects of situations that related to their departmental goals and activities, which may have impacted decision-making ability. Walsh (1988) countered this by demonstrating that a manager’s belief structures did not have any detrimental impact on decision making; additionally, very few managers viewed the organizational world along narrow functional criteria such as those presented in Dearborn and Simon’s study. Bayer et al. (1997) revisited both studies by adding more layers to each in order to understand the decision making process at a deeper level. It was found that managers’ information processing is somewhat influenced by functional experience, but not in the ways previously thought. Additionally, the variations between the Dearborn and Simon and Walsh studies were found to be a result of procedural differences for each experiment versus true variations. That said, is there a one size fits all approach to why these biases occur?

Unfortunately, I would have to argue that no, there is not. However, from personal experience, I know that there are many different factors that can impact perceptual biases. When I first started in management, many of my biases were developed from previous experiences in my own career or life. However, as I continued to grow and develop, the level at which these biases influenced my decisions declined. The reason? Awareness. Sometimes, the best thing you can do is to be aware of what it is you are actually doing. Nobody should expect you to be perfect as that is unrealistic. However, I have learned that people, especially employees, do expect that you should be fair. Being aware of your actions internally will help to demonstrate fairness and equality externally. In having interacted with a few high-level individuals, the ones I respect and remember are those that do not forget that they had to start somewhere too. The ones that I do not care for are those that forgot the essence of who they are and would also prefer to select Mr. Smith over Mr. Stein.

References

Beyer, J. M., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., Glick, W. H., Ogilvie, D., & Pugliese, D. (1997). The selective perception of managers revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 716-737. Retrieved from
http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/199782989?accountid=13158

Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21(2), 140-144. doi: 10.2307/2785898

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

Walsh, J. P. (1988). Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of manager’s belief structures and information processing. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 873-896. Retrieved from
http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/199822948?accountid=13158

Workplaces come in many shapes and sizes; from small local businesses to large-scale global corporations and everything in between. Regardless of the job or size of the organization, most individuals searching for a job hold their happiness high on their needs list. There is no doubt that job satisfaction can greatly affect a persons happiness, as the average American worker spends a great deal of their time working. It is important for leaders in the workplace to understand what job satisfaction is, what contributes to job satisfaction, and how it affects their workers.

Before we can move on, it is important to know and understand what exactly job satisfaction is and what it entails. Jobs satisfaction can be defined as “a persons attitude toward his or her overall job as well as toward various aspects of the job; it is a predisposition to respond to one’s work environment in a favorable or unfavorable manner.” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) A person spending multiple hours of their week working wants to feel good about their work and their working environment, and employers should work to make their organizations a place where job satisfaction is high.

Some factors that contribute to job satisfaction include job characteristics and social/organizational factors. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Job characteristics refer to “the content and nature of job tasks themselves.” These tasks are essential to determining job satisfaction because a the work an employee is expected to complete must be personally interesting and satisfying. Work that is meaningful will make an employee more satisfied with their job. (Schneder, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Social/organizational factors can refer a persons relationships with supervisors/coworkers and the rewards for their work (i.e. pay, promotions). When a person feels that they have equal and fair reward for their work and they maintain good social relationships with others in the workplace, they will have higher job satisfaction. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Overall, a person’s tasks at work, supervisor/coworker relationships, and reward greatly influence a person’s job satisfaction, and therefore are important factors for an employer to keep in mind.

This video talks about 5 factors that influence job satisfaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOR3AnyLOQ

Now that we know what constitutes job satisfaction, we must understand how poor job satisfaction can affect an employee. Employee withdrawal behaviors and performance are two outcomes of poor job satisfaction. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Those who dislike their jobs tend to withdraw (missing work and/or quitting). These behaviors are seen as direct results of poor job satisfaction. Obviously, with low job satisfaction, employees are likely to not perform well. If a person does not see their job as “worthwhile” they will not be invested and will not be productive. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Both of these behaviors (withdrawal and poor performance) are bad for employers, as it is costly to pay for employees who are not providing adequate work for their pay. However, they may be corrected with focusing on factors that increase job satisfaction. These factors give employees motivation to work and will create satisfied employees. It is important to remember that job satisfaction can affect an employees performance- whether good or bad.

As workplaces continue to grow and become more concerned with the wellbeing of their employees, it is important to remember job satisfaction- what it is, what contributes to it, and the effects of it. Job satisfaction not only benefits the employee by providing happiness and meaning, but it benefits employers by having a productive and effective workplace.

References

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications

Perhaps you know that feeling, when you read through the syllabus for the first time, see the “group project” section, and immediately cringe. Online group projects sound great; they give you practice learning from and working with others. Your professor insists that experiences like this will prepare you for your career because having team work experience is essential. Working effectively with others, especially those who may not be easy, is an excellent skill to have. Group projects may be an effective teaching technique in the classroom. However, the circumstances of online learning are different than a traditional classroom, so the same techniques may not have the same impact.

Are online group projects really mimicking real-life work settings? This has not been my experience, as many of my peers have varying degrees of commitment and goals in college courses. Yes, everyone in the class would like to pass the class, but not everyone cares about the subject or are motivated by the same factors. In my experience, this leaves one or two students carrying the rest of the group and doing most of the work. A recent study found that in most projects students admitted that most of the project was completed by one student rather than the entire group contributing equal work (Theobald, J., Eddy, S. L., Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Crowe, A. J., 2017). Online groups require organization and communication. Therefore the group spends a significant amount of time being polite and figuring out how to communicate online effectively that the project often becomes secondary.

I curiously searched the internet for any research supporting my feelings, and I found endless blogs and articles from students complaining about group projects. But of course, just because you do not enjoy doing something, does not mean that you did not learn from that experience. A Washington University study found that the “social dynamics of a group, such as whether one person dominates the conversation or whether students work with a friend, affect academic performance” (Eckart, 2017). I have never worked on a group project where group members were not assigned to me. Eckart also discusses findings that support that students’ who can choose their group members tend to do better in groups (Eckart, 2017). Though, a problem is that students choose group-mates that are most like them (Freeman, S., Theobald, R., & Crowe, A. J., 2017). This makes the project run smoother and more efficiently, but what is the point of group projects if you are not learning to work with people who are different than yourself? This also is not very manageable in online settings, where you do not know your classmates.

With distance learning becoming more accessible and widespread, there are more opportunities to incorporate and understand more effective group processes. There are certainly positive aspects of group projects, especially in the classroom. Though, not every aspect that is effective in a traditional classroom will have the same impact in an online setting. There must be more effective ways for online students to experience the benefits of a group project that considers the online setting and the barriers associated with it.

References

Eckart, Kim (2017). Group project? Taking turns, working with friends may improve grades. University of Washington News. Retrieved from washington.edu/news/2017/09/25/group-project-taking-turns-working-with-friends-may-improve-grades/

Freeman, Scott, Theobald, Roddy, & Crowe, Alison J. (2017). Likes attract: Students self-sort in a classroom by gender, demography, and academic characteristics. Sage Journal. Retrieved from journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1469787417707614

Theobald, Eli J., Eddy, Sarah L., Grunspan, Daniel Z., Wiggins, Benjamin L., & Crowe, Alison J. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. Retrieved from: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181336

We’ve all seen, heard, or read about how great it is to work for Apple, Microsoft, and Google to name a few. These companies all have a reputation for their employees having high job satisfaction. So, I Googled (no pun intended), “why is [Google, Microsoft, Apple] a good company to work for? Sure enough, up popped an article about each one giving the top reasons why.

As I read through each article I thought about the definition of job satisfaction, which is defined as an employee’s attitude about whether they feel favorably or unfavorably about their job overall as well as the various aspects of their job, (Schnieder, Gruman, & Couts, 2012, p.225). I also considered McClelland’s Need Theory based on a need for power, achievement, and affiliation. So what does contribute to high job satisfaction?

As most would expect, one of the top reasons, albeit not necessarily the number one reason, was all three companies were cited as providing good salaries and benefits to their employees. I don’t think there is any surprise there and feeling as though you’re being compensated fairly and have security with good benefits certainly is an important factor for overall job satisfaction. However, when looking at the job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and job feedback, I also found common themes that supported these among each company. All three noted they had the opportunity to provide input, offer ideas, had diversity in their work, and felt they were part of something bigger in creation of their technologies. Some examples of this were:

• Task identity, task significance, and job feedback was noted from Apple employees who felt their mission was changing the world and Microsoft employees who stated they had influence in making work products used by everyone, (Fiegerman, 2012; Bort, 2016)
• Skill variety as with Google employees feeling they had diversity in the work they could do; Apple employees being encouraged to spend 20% of their work time exploring outside projects that could benefit the individual’s creativity as well as contribute to the company and having the security of a big company but the career flexibility of feeling like they worked in a small operation and could change jobs when they got bored; and Microsoft stating they had influence in providing products everyone could use as well as diversity in the work they could do, (Surojit, 2012; Fiegerman, 2012; Bort, 2016).

The one item that wasn’t blatantly stated or obvious was autonomy; however, given the strength of the other four job characteristics, one would conceive it would be safe to assume autonomy plays a part as well in the satisfaction of these job characteristics.

The other top reasons why these companies are good to work for and contributes to job satisfaction, is the social and organizational factors. These include social influence processes, supervisor/coworker relationships, equitable rewards, and promotion opportunities, (Schneider, et.al., 2012, p.227). It was clear for all three of these companies that these aspects were being met. Microsoft and Apple employees included working with great, bright and talented people and their CEO as good reasons to work for their companies, (Bort, 2016; Fiegerman, 2012). While Google employees indicated their TGIF get-together was a top reason; these get-togethers were meant to break the ice between new employees and senior leaders, provide updates on Google events, and a Q&A session with Senior leaders where employees could ask anything. They also had discussion platforms to share ideas that are monitored closely by leaders as well as employees providing input on new products they get to use before they go public, (Surojit, 2012).

Taking this all into consideration and looking at McClelland’s Need Theory, you see that all three—power, achievement, and affiliation—are all present in these reasons. The need for power, specifically, socialized power is present in these organizations. These employees value their CEO and co-workers and have positive relationships between and among them. The need for achievement is met as employees feel they have a large influence on the products they are making and being used by everyone and in changing the world, (Bort, 2016; Fiegerman, 2012). The need for affiliation is certainly met, as all three companies have varying avenues for establishing and maintaining relationships, whether its by offering free gourmet meals to sit down and dine with coworkers, having TGIF get-togethers, or working in a small operational environment as a team, (Surojit, 2012; Fiegerman, 2012). This supports the idea all three are needed if you are going to have success in an organization, and these are successful organizations, (PSU WC L7, 2018, p.2).

Needless to say, there is also a negative side to working at these companies; however, those seem to be outweighed by the positives that give their employees high job satisfaction and companies high retention rates.

References:

Bort, J. (2016, Jun 29). 5 Best and 5 Worst things about working at Microsoft. Inc. Retrieved from:

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/5-best-worst-things-employees-working-microsoft-ceo-nadella.html

Fiegerman, S. (2012, Jun 18). Why working at Apple is a dream job. Business Insider. Retrieved from:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-employees-really-love-about-working-for-apple-2012-6

Penn State University World Campus. (2018). PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 7: Organizational Life AND Teams. from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682591

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Couts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2^nd ed.). Thousands Islands, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Surojit, C. (2012, Jan 20). Top 5 reasons why google is the best company to work for. International Business Times. Retrieved from:

http://www.ibtimes.com/top-5-reasons-why-google-best-company-work-553844

When I think about diversity, I feel warm because to me diversity is a mixture of things or people that come together to add variety to a situation. And as the saying goes, ‘variety is the spice of life.’ Variety in my mind changes the atmosphere and adds flavor to many things. However, that’s how I think and although it aches me, I have become conscious to the fact that many people don’t share the same feelings about diversity, variety, inclusion, cooperation etc. Many people are drawn to the opposite, and support discrimination, segregation, separation and its likeness. Diversity doesn’t end discrimination, and it often negatively impacts minority groups.

I remember being a freshman in college and experiencing what I believe was discrimination. The school that I attended, I would considered somewhat diverse. It was a mixture of probably 60% Caucasian and 40% minorities. The staffing was about the same. As a freshman, I tried to stay on top of my game and worked very hard. However, in one class I was getting a B on all my assignments, so I inquired about it with the instructor. Just to find out what I could do differently to make sure I got an A. I asked, “what’s stopping me from getting an A in my assignments and she responded, “ummm it’s just the way you write.”

“Just the way I write? What do you mean?” I asked. And she said again it’s just the way you write. That’s the only response I was given. So, I went to my English professor (whose class I was averaging A in) and I asked her about my writing. Like I expected, she said she didn’t see anything wrong with it and couldn’t offer any suggestion for changing it. I decided that that wasn’t the school for me. Because if I attend a school I don’t want to be graded lightly or harshly because of my race. I want to be graded on the quality of work I produce. And I knew that sometimes being the only minority, in some classes may lead to alternative reasons for my  grades.

I’ve heard and witnessed many similar stories involving different groups. The one thing that stays true in each situation is the humiliation and disgust that people experience when they are treated that way. Although society has come a far way in bridging the gap of segregation, there is still a lot of work to me done. Sometimes it seems impossible, but we can’t stop trying.

In 1998, three scientists created what is now known as Project Implicit. The project had its humble beginnings rooted in a seemingly innocuous association test that had vast implications for society in its entirety. We have have biases. We are biased about our clothes, our hair products, the car we drive but the biases that we are afraid to admit to are addressed by this test. In a quick paced visual association test, a respondent is given several sets of items with instructions to associate specific items with specific responses (Not many, if any, would want to freely admit they have biases for or against varying demographics and the point of implicit biases is that you are not aware of them). The response time is then calculated and thus your implicit biases can be measured. On the surface, it seems simple however, the test itself is incredibly intuitive and the first of its kind.

Since its creation, the data has been pooled and the book Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People was published in 2013. The book submerges the reader into the methodology of the researches and what sets their work apart from any other reporting and testing methods. The biggest factor is that the test itself is relatively free from self-monitoring possibilities. Participants are largely unaware of how the test is measuring their biases and the real validity behind the measures. This provides a highly accurate compilation of results.

The test measures biases on a range of topics: race, disability, sex, weight, sexuality, weapons, age and even presidents. What they have found throughout their research is that far more people than any of us would like to believe have implicit biases that could be affecting their day to day decisions and could subsequently affect others. There are many American citizens that would love to believe that racism died with the civil rights movement, the advent of desegregation and affirmative action but unfortunately that just is not the case. We may see it with our own eyes as we scroll through the various feeds of social media or view the comments section on YouTube or even CSPAN videos. However, we might tell ourselves that these are just troll accounts or even perhaps just Russian bots attempting to divide and conquer. The disappointing reality is that there is still deep seated racism in the minds of many. This project set out to document that.

The way in which the researchers assess the overwhelming amount of residual bias in our world today, is an incredibly objective one. They reference the “automatic and reflective” reactions of the mind. One is conscious (reflective) and the other unconscious (automatic). Our implicit biases reside in that unconscious part of our mind that is shaped by our experiences and the memories formed from them. Those associations that develop are exactly what the test brings to light in a record-able black and white form of data to be measured. Although the validity and reliability of this test is high, many people are faced with high amounts of cognitive dissonance when staring down their results. How we deal with this dissonance can determine whether these implicit biases are addressed or not.

References:
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: hidden biases of good people. New York: Bantam Books.
ProjectImplicit. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.projectimplicit.net/

Under many organizational hierarchies, it is commonplace for an older male to be in the role of highest authority. All United States Presidents have been male. There are 429 males in the 2018 United States Congress, which includes 535 Senators and Representatives. According to the World Health Organization workforce statistics, women account for more than 75% of the healthcare workforce in the United States (2008). This statistic aligns with the common assumption that women are caring, affectionate and compassionate which are necessary traits to work in healthcare.  The same World Health Organization statistics showed that women also accounted for a majority of the associate professional positions in healthcare, but very few of the professional and physician roles (2008). As with any statistical data, there are always outliers.  I happen to be employed at a non-profit healthcare organization that happens to be an outlier to this data.  

The organization I work for is a nationwide, well-kept secret that is in the business of caring for others. This particular organization goes into communities with a need and does it’s best to meet it whether it is providing housing for the homeless, assisting newly released prisoners with acclimation to their new life and job search, and senior living. My location focuses on Senior Living Housing – Independent Living, Assisted Living, Rehabilitation/Physical Therapy, Long Term Care and Memory Support. Our building is relatively small compared to others in the organization, employs just over 260 employees and we continuously compete with several other large healthcare facilities in the area. Of our four executives, three are females and one is male. We have thirteen department managers, twelve of which are females and one is male. Also included in our leadership structure are five supervisors, three are females and two are males. To put these numbers in perspective, we have two nursing departments whose managers are registered nurses (2) and supervisors are also registered nurses (2). The rest of the leaders in our building may come from similar facilities, but are not medically trained.

Although our campus defies gender norms when it comes to leadership, our culture is very much in line with that of the rest of the United States.  In terms of individualism versus collectivism, our culture leans heavily towards individualism. Even though our mission dictates a common goal of all departments, that they are extremely motivated to follow, the process on how to achieve that goal creates conflict. Each employee that walks through our door every day truly believes that they are there to provide excellent service to the residents that live in our buildings. However, there is much conflict between departments. As a member of Human Resources, I am constantly having to mediate discussions between departments. Schneider, Gruman and Coutts (2012) discuss the Social Identity Theory and share that on assumption of the theory is that people want to feel good about themselves, and about the group that they belong to. Potential for conflict exists when individuals or groups notice differences between their group and another and an “us versus them” sets in. This mentality prevents the groups from being able to work together towards their common goal.

Coalition building would be a great step towards reducing conflict between the departments. We have an employee led committee that plans campus-wide events for all employees. These events promote acquaintance potential allowing people from different groups to socialize and get to know each other on a personal level while doing something entertaining. It would also be in our best interest to try to develop cooperative activities for the groups to do to meet the same goal together.

References

Center for American Women and Politics (2018). Women in the U.S. Congress 2018. Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Retrieved from: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2018). PSYCH 424 Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682591

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

World Health Organization. (2008). Gender and Health Workforce Statistics. Spotlight on Statistics. A fact file on health workforce statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/hrh/statistics/spotlight_2.pdf

It was 1966 in Oakland, California, a time of racial discrimination and turmoil amongst African Americans and the police forces (Duncan, 2017). In order to combat these social injustices, two men named Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded a revolutionary group known as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later changed simply to the Black Panther Party) (Duncan, 2017). Originally, the Black Panthers were to safeguard African American neighborhoods from the police, but they eventually became even more precautious; they promoted arming every African American and the exemption of African Americans from the draft (Duncan, 2017). There was much social tension between in-groups during this period of the 1960s. What else was there to do but to ban together and protect one another from the wanton violence that continually seemed to plague African Americans and their families?

The Black Panther Party was not vehement toward all white people, but aligned themselves with nonracist whites, as each had a common purpose to bring about social justice and eradicate the racial discrimination and chaos that had been ravaging that part of the country (Duncan, 2017). This leads me to believe that the nonracist white people valued their social identity (a committed membership to a group that is significant to one’s self-concept) within the Black Panther Party more than their own personal identities (e.g., race, appearance, desire for personal achievement). However, the Black Panther Party and all of its members seemed to exhibit the characteristics explicated by the Social Dominance Theory.

The Social Dominance Theory explains that every individual belongs to a group, and that each individual offers resources of some kind for members of that particular group. These members are always inclined to protect the group over their individual selves. The aim of the Black Panther Party seemed to be to gain equal footing with the whites in power at the time. Each group desired the resources and the power associated with being at the top of the social hierarchy. Positive social value (e.g., high status) causes members of the high status groups to aim to maintain the social hierarchy just as it is (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), lest they relinquish their resources and power to another subordinate group (in this case, the Black Panther Party). This led to the FBI’s director, J. Edgar Hoover to declare the group the “greatest threat to national security” in 1969 (Duncan, 2017).

Even though the Black Panther Party provided social services like “education, tuberculosis testing, legal aid, transportation assistance, ambulance service, and the manufacture and distribution of free shoes to poor people,” the FBI labeled the Black Panthers a communist organization and therefore an adversary of the United States government (Duncan, 2017). After this, many underhanded tactics (e.g., sabotage, misinformation, lethal force) by COINTELPRO essentially wiped out the Black Panther Party. The FBI and the United States government was the more powerful and resourceful in-group at the time (and still remains so). There is much to learn from this fearful reaction from our US government, and much to learn about how in-groups view out-groups as bona fide threats.

We as humans instinctually look at one another in a defensive mode- is this person like me or not? This can be seen throughout our lives, however, it seems to be prominent in many of our schools in the form of bullying. In applied social psychology, there are many thoughts and ideas pertaining to discrimination and intergroup relations; especially the social identity theory and the social dominance theory. Humans are social creatures, and we do many things in order to belong. We must feel like we are an individual member of a larger group, and we must protect that group in order to keep our “place.” Could bullying be seen as a way to keep one’s place in their respective groups?

The social identity theory aims to explain why and when we use different aspects of our identity to behave in situations. Our social identity focuses on a person’s membership and committal to a group. (Nelson, 2018) A child or adolescent is just beginning to really feel the importance of belonging to a group of peers, and this seems to be when bullying occurs the most. Groups provide an identity to a person by having common norms and expectations. However, these group norms/expectations tend to enhance bullying when a group is presented an “outsider” with conflicting norms. (Duffy, Nesdale, 2009) Perhaps bullying is a result of a person feeling their identity is rooted within a group, and feels that when their identity is threatened, they must act against the threatening outsider. It may be a sign of “I believe what you believe” to the other members of the group when a child bullies an outsider to that group.

The social dominance theory highlights that a person feels that they must protect their in-group, in order to keep the group’s resources available to the individual. While the social identity theory believes that an individual is only motivated to protect the group sometimes, the social dominance theory believes that a person is motivated to protect all of the time. (Nelson, 2018) These groups may provide a sense of belonging to an individual, and opportunities of power. These positions of power and status may cause children and adolescents to treat others poorly, however. From research, ranking members of more dominant groups tend to treat group outsiders negatively in order to keep their power within a group. (Olthof, Goossens, Vermande, Aleva, van der Meulen, 2011) According to the social dominance theory, a person will always protect their group because the group and power it provides is most valuable. Could bullies simply be trying to preserve their in-group status by derogating others?

While there is no denying that bullying is an atrocious act and is becoming a bit of an epidemic, there may be more to it than angsty teenagers or rowdy children. Could bullying be rooted in our own innate tendencies to belong to a group and protect our status? While there are many facets that may explain bullying, there seems to be a large part of it that we are simply born with in our genetics. We should take a step towards looking at ourselves as a human race in order to understand our faults, and hopefully one day alleviate many of them; including bullying.

References

Pennsylvania State University, World Campus (2018). PSYCH 424: Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. Retrieved from CANVAS: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules

Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer Groups, Social Identity, and Children’s Bullying Behavior. Social Development, 18(1), 121-139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.x

Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van der Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of School Psychology, 29(3), 339-359. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.003

When I think about the terms prejudice and discrimination, the first thing that comes to mind is gender. In our society today, gender gaps within a work place are an ongoing issue. People of opposite genders are doing the same work for lower pay, simply because of their gender. So why is this? Is there a solution to this issue? Why in this day and age is our society still facing prejudice and discrimination against genders?

First, it is important to know exactly what gender, prejudice and discrimination are. People often think that gender and sex have the same meaning, but this is not the case. “Sex is the biological distinction of being a male or female, whereas gender is the social or learned characteristics that are associated with being male or female.” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012.) Therefore, gender can be described as how we see men and women. This meaning that if we see a woman, we as a society would automatically think of her having feminine characteristics, and vice versa for men. Next, we have to define the terms prejudice and discrimination. “Prejudice is an attitude toward others based a specific group membership. When this attitude becomes a behavior, that is then what we call discrimination” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012.) These two terms often go hand and hand. This is because often times when a specific group has an attitude towards something, a behavior will come soon after.

There was a study done that investigated gender wage inequality. In this study they found that “women who work in establishments in which relatively many of the managers are men have lower wages than do those women with similar qualifications and job demands who work in establishments with a stronger female representation in the power structure.” (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999.) This simply means that there is proven gender discrimination in deciding the wages of workers. People of opposite genders are doing the same work for lower pay. Male managers will pay male workers more money than they pay female workers. This is not because of the work they do, or the skills/qualifications they have, but simply because one is male, and one is female. Hultin & Szulkin (1999) also proved in their study that “men have less than two years more labor market experience than women have, and the gender differences in seniority with current employer as well as the number of years in education are negligible. Yet there are considerable differences in the allocation of women and men to jobs and establishments in the labor market.” (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999.) This again means that there are gender discriminations against females working in certain places.

Gender discrimination/prejudice in the work place is a big issue in society today. I am unsure if we will ever find a solution to this issue. There is a lot of evidence out there showing that men and women are more equal than different when it comes to employment, yet we still have this on going issue. This brings me back to my question in the beginning. Why in this day and age is our society still facing prejudice and discrimination against genders? Maybe we will never know that answer.

References:

Hultin, M., & Szulkin, R. (1999). Wages and unequal access to organizational power: An empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 453-472.

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

In my professional life, I work in the IT sector for a major bank. I have worked in IT for about a decade at this point and it has always felt like a good fit, in terms of culture. The IT world is a bit more laid back professionally, and there is a large emphasis placed on teamwork and group cohesion, as knowledge-sharing is imperative. As a woman, I rarely got the feeling that I was out of place or looked down upon for being in IT due to my gender (at least as far as my coworkers and management were concerned), and I didn’t spend much time thinking about my gender in relation to my job. Then one sunny day in 2015, a seemingly innocent interaction shook both my comfort and my confidence.

About midday, a male executive from another city pulled myself and all my female coworkers off the floor and into a large conference room, without explanation. There were only about 8 of us, and we realized quickly that our male coworkers were conspicuously absent. The executive then entered the room, and asked us why more women didn’t work in our department. He had, apparently, gotten a poor mark on a diversity scorecard, and wanted very much to set things straight. He asked what it was about technology that women don’t like. He asked us why we weren’t referring our female friends. He asked us if the men were making us feel uncomfortable with their “loose talk”, or if they smell bad. The eight of us were largely silent, which upset him, so he tasked us with creating a committee to determine why women weren’t applying so that it could be fixed. We were to meet every day for at least an hour until we could get him some clear steps forward. We were also to enroll in a “Women in IT” group, whose aim was to improve the IT skills of women and empower their professional development.

This executive’s mindset was a good example of benevolent sexism, which can be defined as attributing positive or desirable traits to one gender over another (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Sexism refers to any type of bias based on sex, but benevolent sexism specifically deals with positive-seeming biases. He believed that women were cleaner than men and less tolerant of curse words and racy conversational topics, and that these sensibilities could be why women wouldn’t want to work in our male-heavy department. Though it seems complimentary that this executive believed women to be more “pure” than the men they were surrounded with, his words were based on sexist stereotypes. Furthermore, since the women and the men on the floor used bawdy language in equal measure, the executive’s sexism had the added effect of shaming the women in the room for not being more “pure”, as though it made them less womanly to join in with their male coworker’s behavior. Although his intentions may have been good, the message the executive was sending us was decidedly harmful.

The eight of us in that room were not given the option of participating in this committee to determine why there weren’t more women in the department, but were told we had to do it. I felt that this was wrong, and was very angry while sitting at that table, but I didn’t speak up. I came to find out later that most of the women at the table were quite angry about this, but also felt that they should not speak up. I was a team lead at this point, and therefore of the eight women in the room I had the greatest authority. The women expected me to say something because of my position, but I felt that contradicting the executive in front of his subordinates would be unprofessional, which is why I remained silent. We all fell into the trap of the diffusion of responsibility, meaning that each of us felt that it was not our duty to address what was being said and done alone, thereby calling the brunt of his reaction down upon ourselves.

Furthermore, the eight of us in that room were also not given the opportunity of declining membership in the “Women in IT” group, which I found to be an even greater affront. My skills and the skills of my female coworkers were at least on-par with the skills of our male coworkers, so the idea that we needed to attend IT classes to get better at our jobs was insulting. Furthermore, these meetings are held every month at the same time, so if every women in our department left at the same time for a couple hours for one of these classes or meetings it would be very conspicuous. Going to these meetings caused me, and likely my other female coworkers, to feel stereotype threat, which is an anxiety that your behavior or performance will reinforce a stereotype about some aspect of yourself to others. By this executive telling the women in his department that they alone need more training, he was reinforcing to the males and to the females in the department that women need more help to be at the same level as men.

Now this stereotype threat could have had echoing consequences as well. Our jobs in this department required triaging and diagnosing technical issues, then choosing the right solution. Reminding women that a stereotype exists that says they are not as good at men at IT could cause their performance to tangibly decline. According to the NPR article “How Stereotypes Can Drive Women to Quit Science”, a study on stereotype threat by psychologist Claude Steele showed that when women were reminded that a stereotype existed saying that they were bad at math, they performed worse on an ensuing math test (Vedantam, 2012). These data have been generalized to many domains since they were gathered, and it seems likely that with further research this could include the field of IT.

To compound matters even further, all this time away from our desks for the “Women in IT” group as well as the meetings to determine how to get more women to join the department would have the added effect of adding more work to our male coworker’s plates. This added work would likely create resentment towards the women on the team, and create in-groups and out-groups along gender lines in the department where before, the in-group was all the workers on the floor and the outgroups were other departments, or teams in other locations (PSU WC, 2018). The men would feel like they were being unfairly loaded down with extra work, likely so that women could become “as good as them” at their jobs, and women would feel the sting of this resentment and may internalize negative concepts about their own skillsets.

If the executive had performed some research before he pulled us into that room, he may have discovered that the issue with women in technology is likely that women see very few women in the field and assume that they wouldn’t be good at it. Stereotype threat can hit almost immediately, and according to research, does. As Vedantam states in his NPR article, the best course to get women to join technology jobs is to get them to go into technology fields, which occurs before they ever hit our departmental floor (2012).
This initiative of the executives didn’t pan out very well, fortunately, and lost steam about two weeks after the initial meeting. Despite most of my fears about this situation never being realized, it still causes me very negative feelings when I think about it or discuss it, and I’m sure it has impacted how I present myself and the risks I am willing to take within my chosen field. While I certainly agree that a gender disparity within IT is an issue that deserves attention, it must be handled carefully so as to prevent further women from feeling discriminated against and staying away from the IT field.

References:

Pennsylvania State University, World Campus (2018). PSYCH 424: Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. Retrieved from CANVAS: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules

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

Vedantam, S. (2012, July 12). How Stereotypes Can Drive Women To Quit Science. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs

Upon hearing about another tremendously tragic and terribly sad high school shooting, it made me think even more about the Social Identity, Social Dominance and Intergroup theories and how they particularly play a role in high schools. These groups were formed through social categorization–grouping those who were the most similar together. Still unsure of why there is a need for this today, but I suppose there is still some part of us who feels safest when we are in numbers with people who are like us as explained by the evolutionary psychologists, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.1). At this point, I believe we have all been through high school and remember how it was segregated into these different social groups.

The most well-known and socially accepted groups were categorized into the Jocks, Nerds, Thespians, and Troublemakers. Social Identity theory states that individuals have their own personal identity as well as a social identity and the two overlap. Each individual person in these groups has their own personal moral sensibility, conscience and desires, but the group also plays a role in their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. For instance, an individual in the Jock group may believe because of his athletic abilities he is superior and has a desire to succeed in sports, which would most likely go along with the other group member’s perception of themselves. When their social identity is tied to a group they derive part of their self-esteem from committing and belonging to the group, hence making it their in-group. Being part of the in-group provides protection and resources to the individuals and the group as a whole. Anyone who does not belong is considered the out-group and is not afforded the same protection and resources from that group. Instead they derive these things from the group they belong, which becomes their in-group and so on. Depending on any given situation, a person’s individual or social identity may dominate their behavior. For example, if the Jock group is being attacked and individual from that group steps up to protect them, they are most likely to use their social identity in the interaction, (PSU WC L6, p4).

This all sounds well and good until you take into account social dominance theory (SDT) and one group feeling superior over the others with a need to enforce a hierarchy where they serve as the dominant group. The Jocks were the ones who seemed to feel superior over the others when I was in school. Of the three SDT categories, they would qualify as an arbitrary set, rather than age or gender, coming together through the belief the world seemed to revolve around them. The Jocks seemed to have the physical power and resources to serve as the dominant group. They were given special treatment and perceived as having a positive social value, even over those who might be intellectually superior, reinforcing their in-group favoritism of each member. Additionally, they seemed to always be motivated to protect their group, unlike the other groups who just looked out for each other. The Jocks ensured their status by snubbing the other groups and ensuring they knew they who had the power and status (out-group derogation), (PSU WC L6, 2018, p5). This also happened down the hierarchy chain.

The rest of the hierarchy order was the Troublemakers, Nerds, then Thespians, The Troublemakers did not perceive the Jocks as superior nor did they have the desire to become part of the Jocks in-group; however, they did have a desire to be the dominant group. Perhaps they felt as if they became the dominant group they could shake their negative social status. This often caused a large amount of conflict between these two groups, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.5). It may also be attributed to the fact that the individuals in both of these groups may have had a high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). SDO is about the degree to which the individuals in the group want to keep the group hierarchy and dominate inferior groups. Along with SDT, it is posited that individuals high in SDO are always motivated to protect the group rather than providing that protection only during threatening situations. Individuals with high SDO are also predisposed to having prejudices and discriminating against other groups. Those individuals in dominant groups have been shown to have high SDO, (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006). Additionally, in a study by Goodboy, Martin, & Rittenour, a correlation was found between high SDO and bullying behaviors in those in secondary school, (2016).

The Nerds and Thespians happily maintained the status quo, ceding any power and status they had to both groups reinforcing the legitimizing myths. In this case, I don’t think the subordinate groups were hopeful they would one day join the dominant group, although I am sure they wished they had the power and resources to do so. On occasion, an individual from one group may have sought and gained in-group favoritism from another group, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p5). These were times when the contact hypothesis came into play on an individual versus a group situation. For example, when individuals from varying social groups are in the same class and assigned to work together in groups and they have the opportunity to get to know each other they may even become friends. They have equal status as students in that classroom, the same goal of completing a project, and teacher’s support, meeting the three necessary conditions of contact theory. This did not, however, necessarily gain the individual who belonged to the lesser group, in-group favoritism of the other individual’s dominant group. Although sometimes it did buy some level of acceptance for the individual by the dominant group as well, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.3).

All of these groups could be diverse within themselves with regard to race, gender, and to some degree age. Yet each group came with its own prejudices about the other and often displayed forms of discrimination amongst groups. Those high in SDO and in the dominant group may even have gone as far as to bully other individuals and groups.

Which brings me back to my original thought about the recent school shooting. If there is this dominant hierarchy and attitude among those who do belong to a social group and the potential for bullying those in lower status groups, what about those who don’t fit into any social group? Those individuals who do not belong, the one’s that are made fun of, bullied, ignored completely, or called a creepy loner?

References:

Goodboy, A.K., Martin, M.M., & Rittenour, C.E. (2016). Bullying as a Display of Social

Dominance Orientation. Communication Research Reports, Vol.33 No.2, pp.159-165.

Penn State University World Campus. (2018). PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682591

Pratto, F., Sidanious, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.

People must be able to look past stereotypes of others that are of different from them if they want to live in a world of peace, humanity, and fairness for all. In todays society we see many divisions based on things like race, gender, age, and socio-economic status. The social dominance theory tells us that stereotypes are created and employed by a group in order to protect their group from the “outsiders”. There may have been some evolutional advantages to this way of thinking, in older time periods. The contact hypothesis suggests that these stereotypes can be overcome when certain criteria are met. Here is a recent example that shows how, looking past stereotypes and working with other groups can create a better environment for everyone.

In Westport, Massachusetts there is a great example of intergroup relations. The Westport Education Partners is composed of nine volunteer groups. These organizations “reflect a cross section of parents and senior” that work all year round in efforts that enhance the educational experience of all students in the community. The dynamic of the older members interacting with the younger members of the community is very important. Today we can see a disconnect between our elders and our youth; the youth carrying the attitude that the adults know nothing or very little (especially with the exponential growth of technology via computers and smartphones), while the elder members are not wanting to interact with the youngsters because they don’t understand the behavior of the “kids these days”. These are general stereotypes held by both groups that I’m throwing out there and there is much more that underlies the disconnect between the old and the young, but you get the gist of what I am saying; there is a disconnect between the two groups.

The social dominance theory suggests that different societal groups are in a hierarchy and people move in ways that maintain this hierarchy. The groups provide resources for their members. The individuals are motivated to protect their respective group, with the expectation that the group will protect them. The dominant or top-group wants to maintain the hierarchy because their group provides many resources and the highest social status. In order for them to maintain their top spot they must believe that they are better than the lower groups. They achieve this by always seeing their group in a good light (this is called in-group favoritism), while at the same time, promoting negative stereotypes of the out-groups (this is called out-group derogation). These negative stereotypes make it easier group members to discriminate against out-groups. The lower or bottom-groups want to maintain the hierarchy in hopes that they will be able to gain membership one day, reaping the benefits of the resources and high social status. When out-group members are rejected (due to the in-group members belief in negative stereotypes about them) they become frustrated and give up trying to behave in ways that will grant them access. They create negative stereotypes and attitudes about the dominant group (they are heartless and don’t care about other people, they are mean, they are not good people, and “I would never want to be a person like that even if it means I have to live poor.)” Now by this point those two groups have created such strong negative beliefs about the other group that It is very difficult for people to see the out-group members in a positive light. These negative beliefs get in the way of mixed-group interactions and this limits people getting to know many out-groups members personally, only knowing the stereotypes.

There are natural benefits that this type of thinking but they seem to be antiquated; for example, disease. Some people may have this disease while others may have that disease. If we our bodies are not familiar with a specific disease then they are vulnerable to them, never having the opportunity to create natural anti-bodies. We all know that hundreds of thousand (maybe more) Native Americans perished from disease brought by European conquerors. It would make evolutionary sense for us to naturally discriminate against other groups as to avoid coming into contact with diseases that our bodies are not built for (PSU, Canvas, Psych 424 course modules, Lesson 6 Intergroup Relations/Diversity). But those days are gone now. Today a man may visit over many countries all over the world in his lifetime. With modes of transportation like the plane, our societies have become inter-connected and we are no longer separated as we were in the past. Modern medicine such as vaccines can now protect us from foreign diseases. This evolutionary protection seems to have become useless, similar to the vestigial appendix organ, yet they still remain. How do we overcome the stereotypes that we have formed/learned in order to create a more humane society for all when, after all, it only seems natural?

Lets refer back to the Westport Education Partners. By these two groups (old and young aged people) working together with a common goal, they are implementing an intervention that uses the contact hypothesis. Our text tells us that the contact hypothesis asserts “the assumption [ ] that positive contact with members of an out-group could decrease negative stereotyping of the out-group by the in-group and lead to improved intergroup relations.” (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. 2012). Out lesson commentary says that three are three criteria that must be met in order for the contact hypothesis to be effective; “equal status contact, common goals, and support by relevant institutions.” (Psu, Canvas).

The nine organizations that make up the Westport Education Partners all have different goals but they all implement these three criteria. Each organization are made up of older and younger people and they are a team. The elders are not more important than the youth and vice versa. Each organization has specific common goals that the old and they young work together to achieve. [For example, the organization known as The Dharma Voyage, has worked to bring in boat building courses to the Westport Community schools. The full credit course, now available to students, “is an excellent example of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math) curriculum and hands-on learning” (Stanford Times, 2018).] The final criterion is met due to all of the other, relevant institutions that support the organizations. The school, the parents, partnering organizations and business, and local media are some example of relevant institutions that support the Westport Education Partner’s. The results have shown a better interaction between the young and the old through out the community; “Through programs and support they set an example for youth — and foster interactions between adults and youth throughout the town” (Stanford Times, 2018).

It seems that it is only natural for humans to form groups and engage in in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. But now it seems that this natural way of thinking is getting in the way of creating a fair and just society. Discrimination and stereotyping really have no place in the global society that our world is becoming; it is detrimental to the well being of all. With better understanding we can come up with ideas to counter-act our negative stereotypes of others. (After all, they are not based on reality or any actual evidence). The contact hypothesis seems to give us a great framework to create interventions and programs that can aide us in having positive interactions with out-group members, allowing us to become more open. One day, I believe, we will get to a point where out-group derogation and discrimination will be considered a foolish mans practice. But it starts with exposing people to the truth. That is exactly what the Westport Education Partner’s are trying to do; it seems like they have been able to erode the stereotypes of the participants about the other groups. The respect and cooperation from the old to the young and the young to the old has allowed them to accomplish things that has made the communities educational environment better for the kids, the future.

References:

The Stanford Times, Westport Education Programs boost student, schools. South Coast Today, Southcoasttoday.com. Retrieved from: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180216/westport-education-partners-boost-students-schools

Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. SAGE Publications, inc. Thousand Oaks, California. 201

Penn State University, Canvas, Psych 424 course modules, Lesson 6 Intergroup Relations/Diversity. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules

Adolescents in relationships may experience more stress on a day to day basis than others. Stressors can range from; lack or misinterpretation of communication, wondering if a relationship will last, losing your identity, and or concerns about infidelity. Such stressors, which have the ability to induce stress, can have a negative impact on one’s overall well-being. Frank Schneider, Jamie Gruman, and Larry Coutts (2012) state that “it is easy to identify the feeling of being stressed, but it is not always clear why certain events bother us so much” (p. 183). So, learning how one can reduce the stress which they feel and or help cause should be better understood amongst adolescents to not only live a minimally stress-free life, but to utilize better coping mechanisms to maintain a healthy relationship.

As we have learned in chapter 8 of Applying Social Psychology to Health, there are many models which can help guide our experiences and have a better understanding as to why they occur. In this case we can focus on the transactional model of stress. The premise of this model is that the stress in which one may experience is the direct result of interactions between their environment and people within it. When someone is affected by a stressor they must make an appraisal which can be thought of as an assessment on how to respond. Once it has been determined how to best respond to the situation, different coping mechanisms can be initiated to relieve and or prohibit the stressors from affecting one again. There are two different coping mechanisms in which one can use; problem-focused and or emotion-focused. If someone is faced with a stressor and they “tackle” that problem directly, they are using problem-focused coping. If someone is affected by a stressor which negatively alters their emotions and they then try to control their emotions and or readjust them to minimize any negative affects they are using emotion-focused coping.

The age limit for adolescence according to the Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health is 10-19 years of age (“Age Limits and Adolescents”, 2003). At this age one is enrolled in either middle or high school. This is a pivotal time where emotions are learned to be expressed in friendly and intimate ways which can induce stress depending on how they are perceived by others. Elvira Cicognani of the University of Bologna studied different coping strategies in adolescents. In her 2011 study, Coping Strategies with Minor Stressors in Adolescence: Relationships with Social Support, Self-Efficacy, and Psychological Well-Being, it was noted that female adolescents are more affected by relationship stressors (p. 561). Females do not work through more stressors than males, but they interpret them to be more stressful and are thus affected more greatly by them in comparison to males. The results of her study show that adolescents chose to cope with their problems by discussing them with the person who is also affected or involved with it. This is problem-focused coping. Cicognani (2011) states that “talking with the person concerned was used more frequently for problems within all types of relationships (i.e., parents, peers, romantic relationships)” (p. 565). As one progressed through adolescence their stressors and or how much they let such stressors affect them had decreased.

A major impact on one’s coping mechanism and how they work through stressors is their self-efficacy which Schneider et al. (2012) define as “our perception of whether or not we actually have what it takes to carry out a behavior” (p. 177). In Cicognani’s study, self-efficacy has a positive correlation with internal/emotion-focused coping.

Inge Seiffge-Krenke of the University of Mainz mentions in her decade review on Coping with Relationship Stressors, how emergent interest in romantic relationships are major changes of the adolescent period (2011, p. 196). It was found that one of the main stressors arose due to adolescents struggling with finding a balance in maintaining satisfaction between their self, partner, and other social relationships. Krenke found that coping strategies were influenced by gender and their socialization practices. For example, females appraise conflicts more negatively than do males and approach such stressors with a more cautious style of coping in regard to relationships (Krenke, 2011, p. 206).

References

Age Limits and Adolescents. (2003). Journal of Pediatrics & Child Health, 8(9), 577.

Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping Strategies with Minor Stressors in Adolescence: Relationships                    with Social Support, Self-Efficacy, and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Applied                      Social Psychology, 41, 559-578. Retrieved from                                                                              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00726.x/abstract

Krenke, S.I. (2011). Coping with Relationship Stressors: A Decade Review. Journal of Research             on Adolescence. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2919.00723.x

Schneider, F. W. , Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M.(2012). Applied Social Psychology: Second                   Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

A woman’ s reproductive system is a delicate and complex system in the body. It is important to take steps to protect it from infections and injury, and prevent problems—including some long-term health problems. Protecting your reproductive system also means having control of your health, if and when, you become pregnant (Women’s Reproductive System). The Sexual and reproductive health problems are responsible for one third of health issues for women between the ages of 15 and 44 years (Flavia Bustreo). There are many factors that play a role in the problems women face with Reproductive and sexual health. This brief will dive into what I believe is most significant, and take a look at the problematic policies that hinders this healthcare issue. Policy alternatives will be offered to help repair a huge health issue amongst women, one that is responsible to continue the life of the human species.
“Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of reproductive disease or infirmity. Reproductive health deals with the reproductive processes, functions and system at all stages of life. The International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action states that “reproductive health … implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. Reproductive health includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counseling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases” (Guidelines on Reproductive Health).
Issues that can arise from poor reproductive health in women are “diseases, disorders and conditions that affect the functioning of the male and female reproductive systems during all stages of life. Disorders of reproduction include birth defects, developmental disorders, low birth weight, preterm birth, reduced fertility, impotence, and menstrual disorders” (Reproductive Health). The problem that is faced is that women do not have enough knowledge that their daily lifestyle habits intact their reproductive system. Many women have the knowledge that unsafe sexual behaviors can impact their health and future of reproducing, but not many women gives much though to their lifestyle affecting fertility.
Lifestyle factors are the modifiable habits and ways of life that can greatly influence overall health and well-being, including fertility. Many lifestyle factors such as the age at which to start a family, nutrition, weight, exercise, psychological stress, environmental and occupational exposures, and others can have substantial effects on fertility; lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking, illicit drug use, and alcohol and caffeine consumption can negatively influence fertility (Sharma, R, et al).
The global status of women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights is disturbing: 225 million women worldwide want (but lack access to) contraception; approximately 800 women die daily from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth; and 40% of UN member states criminalize same-sex relationships between consenting adults (Women Health Issues).

Overall women are not educated on reproductive health on a whole, and the day to day activities we partake in that affects reproductive health. There is a lack of contraception options for women world wide, and some of our basic rights as women are at risk. In the US, whomever we put in the house, will either add or take away policies that help many women in regards to their reproductive health. For example; many anti-abortion politicians passed anti-abortion laws. This affected women’s access to get abortions, especially women of lower income status. This also brings up issues of Health disparities. The quality of the care you receive is predetermined based on many factors including, but not limited to: race, social class, gender, or income. Also, there are still many States that charges taxes on Tampons, pads, ect, and label them as a luxury item. If you were to ask women world wide, I’m sure they would all unanimously agree that, the struggles of monthly shedding of the lining of their uterus is no luxury.
To improve upon this condition, women must first be knowledgeable and not ashamed to speak on this matter. There are many factors that contribute to poor reproductive health in women. However, the thing that is most important, although general is the lifestyle in which we lead. This lifestyle includes diets, activity level, sexual habits, are just to name a few. It is important that we observe our bodies, through that observation we will know if something is off. It is also very important to get regular check ups from healthcare professionals. If certain disease are caught early, they can resolve the issue rapidly, causing less damage to ones reproductive health. This major issue affects every woman, and is something that should be payed attention to.

Reference Page

“Women’s Reproductive System .” Center of Disease Control and Prevention , www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/womensrh/index.htm.

Flavia Bustreo. “Ten Top Issues for Women’s Health.” World Health Organization , www.who.int/life-course/news/commentaries/2015-intl-womens-day/en/.

“Guidelines on Reproductive Health.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/popin/unfpa/taskforce/guide/iatfreph.gdl.html.

“Reproductive Health.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/repro-health/index.cfm.

Sharma, R, et al. “Lifestyle Factors and Reproductive Health: Taking Control of Your Fertility.” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology : RB&E., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 16 July 2013, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23870423.

“Women Health Issues: Reproductive Health and Rights.” Global Fund for Women, 5 July 2017, www.globalfundforwomen.org/sexual-reproductive-health-rights/#.WhIFTLhOmf0.

Throughout my twenty-four years on this planet, there have been many things that come easily for me in life. Some of those things include playing softball, driving a stick shift, and remembering a large amount of useless facts about pop culture. I still hold onto hope that those facts may help me win on Jeopardy one day. Though those are some awesome attributes to have, I have lacked in a major area in my life. That area includes social interactions. This includes public speaking, meeting new people, and pretty much a wide variety of other social communications.

From a young age, I had always carried a fear of having to speak in front of large crowds or a room full of new people. This is social phobia is something I can remember having all the way back in preschool. I can remember having recess and wanting to ask other children if they wanted to build Legos with me but being overcome with a sense of fear throughout my body. That sense of fear was also accompanied with the feeling of being queasy and shaky. All three symptoms are common signs of having social anxiety (National Institute of Mental Health, 2017). Luckily, Legos were popular, and I eventually managed to make friends by our shared interest.

I would say my social anxiety grew to a more noticeable level during high school. As most high school teenagers, I was pretty consumed with worrying about how others perceived me. This relates to the notion that people have a certain self-presentation that they try to control while interacting with other people (Schnieder, Gruman, & Coutts 2012). That self-presentation influences how other people perceive that specific person. For me, it was important to be perceived as someone that was respectful and smart. I, however, had a low confidence level in my ability to promote this image to my peers and teachers. In other words, my social self-efficacy was very low (Schnieder, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

How did this impact my interactions during high school? I often held back comments or contributions to class discussions in anticipation of negative outcomes. I wanted to avoid saying something that might contradict the self-presentation I was promoting about myself. Maybe my answer was wrong, or worse maybe it would upset someone else with a different perspective. I remember wanting to avoid any embarrassment of having different opinions than that of most of my classmates at all cost. For context, I held very liberal beliefs, while most of my classmates held very conservative beliefs. I was exhibiting both negative outcome expectancy, and anticipatory embarrassment by believing if I spoke up, something negative would happen. In addition, I would be embarrassed for being different (Schnieder, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). These two aspects are very prominent in those that experience social anxiety.

I have been lucky to find my voice throughout the last several years. It has not been something that has happened overnight, and it is something I continue to work on every single day. During my freshman year of college, I joined a support group at the previous institution I attended. In this group, I met some amazing people that struggled with some of the same issues I experienced. Having this support really guided me into a better understanding of what happens in events that carry high social anxiety, and how to react to those situations accordingly.  I also attribute an increase in my social self-efficacy to some of the projects I have completed throughout my academic career. Though group projects and public speaking in speech classes may have been dreaded activities, they allowed me to have practice attempts to become more comfortable using my voice around others. I have found that believing in yourself can carry a person over the steepest of mountains.

References:

National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Social Anxiety Disorder: More Than Just Shyness. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/social-anxiety-disorder-more-than-just-shyness/index.shtml

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

When going through the lesson this week I found it very interesting that phobias can be cured by the person with the phobia watching an actor perform the phobia activity and then the person feels little to no fear in doing that activity themselves. After learning this new therapy technique, I was very curious about other therapies that are out there that have been successful with things such as anxiety and depression. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has proven to be very successful especially with people who suffer from anxiety. The fact of the matter is that many more people suffer from anxiety than you would realize.

According to the ADAA over 40 million Americans over the age of 18 suffer from anxiety. That is definitely more people than I myself even thought and I personally suffer from anxiety myself so I know on a personal level how it affects people (Egen, Sean P).

Another thing about anxiety that many people don’t realize is that there are many different kinds of anxiety that someone can have. Just to name a few there is general anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and phobic disorders which I talked about the treatment of above. As far as anxiety disorders are concerned therapy is proven to be the most effective treatment (Smith, Melinda, et al.). Among all of the different therapies that are used to treat anxiety, Cognitive Behavior Therapy is one of the leading approaches.

How Cognitive Behavior Therapy works is it addresses the negative patterns the person experiences and goes through and helps them change the way they view themselves and the world around them. By helping them change the way they view the world this will help them to see that there is nothing they need to be anxious about. The main purpose of Cognitive Behavior Therapy is to address the main concerns the patient has and their negative thinking that contributes to their anxiety (Smith, Melinda, et al.).

I think overall when we discuss anxiety in today’s society a lot of people over look just how much of an impact it can have on the people it affects. I think a lot of people also don’t realize just how many people are affected by it. But most importantly I think a lot of people who suffer from anxiety don’t realize that therapy such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy can be incredibly helpful. I hope we start to see more people who seek out therapy and can reap the benefits of it.

References:

Egen, Sean P. “8 Facts About Anxiety and Anxiety Disorder.” Elements Behavior Health, 10 Jan. 2015, www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/mental-health/8-facts-anxiety-anxiety-disorders/.

Smith, Melinda, et al. “Therapy for Anxiety Disorders.” Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Exposure Therapy, and Other Options, Dec. 2017, www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/therapy-for-anxiety-disorders.htm.

The general consensus among the public is that counseling, mental health care, and therapy are reserved for the small facet of society that struggle with severe mental illness. Mental health care or treatment is often depicted as long stays in the psych ward, a massive amount of medication, and life-long struggles with finding the right treatment. This stereotype negates the fact that therapy can be used preventatively, and is a great coping mechanism for everyday stressors when easily accessible to the public.

The National Institute of Mental Health (2018) estimates that one in six American adults live with a mental illness. That equated to about 44.7 million people in 2016. There are far reaching socio-economic effects that are triggered by mental illness. The World Health Organization (2004, p 15) reports that the United States collectively spends about 147 billion dollars towards mental disorders. The true cost of mental illness is incredibly difficult to measure as there are so many facets of society effected by untreated disorders.  Those who experience severe mental illness symptoms are unable to work, which causes an additional strain on families, communities, and governments. Additionally, there’s the cost of health and social services, the negative impact on families and healthcare workers, correlations to crime and public safety, as well as the impact of stigma on those who are effected by mental illnesses.

Enter preventative therapy; an incredibly important yet underutilized tool in mental health care. The effectiveness of psychotherapy (talk-therapy) for instance, has been studied and substantiated by the psychological community. The APA writes that “psychotherapy even works better in the long-term and is more enduring than medication. In fact, not only is it more cost-effective, but psychotherapy leads to fewer relapses of anxiety and mild to moderate depression than medication use alone” (Brownawell, Kelley, 2011). This is not to discredit the applicability of other forms of mental health treatment, as differing disorders and symptoms require different or more intensive treatment often featuring medication as treatment tool. A space for psychotherapy certainly exists for the public however, as it is cost effective and features many techniques that could be incorporated into a variety of formats and situations. Additionally,  increased use of psychotherapy principles could lead to an overall healthier and mentally happier society.

Imagine a society that utilizes psychotherapy to help cope with everyday stressors. If we incorporated therapy techniques into workplaces, schools, campuses, and integrated them into regular health care, we would see huge benefits. Instead of stressing mental health care during a mental health emergency, we should think of mental health care as a regular action we can take to help maintain a healthy mind.  If everyone sought adequate preventative treatment, which could consist of something as simple as incorporating mindfulness based techniques into their coping skills, discrimination and stigma around mental health treatment would decrease, making life substantially easier for those with both mild and severe mental health disorders. We are all encouraged to go to the dentist, eye doctor, and our general physician on a regular basis; shouldn’t we seek regular care for our mental health as well?

Reference:

Mental Illness. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml

Prevention of Mental Disorders EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS. (2004). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/en/prevention_of_mental_disorders_sr.pdf

Brownawell, A., & Kelley, K. (2011, October). Psychotherapy is effective and here’s why. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/psychotherapy.aspx

I think the answer is obviously both. For the past six years that I’ve lived in New York City, it’s my perception that the homeless population has increased dramatically over the years. Sometimes when I walked past these unfortunate people, I could see syringes lying next to them while they lay unconscious. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s website, “In January 2016, one in five people experiencing homelessness had a serious mental illness, and a similar percentage had a chronic substance use disorder.” So roughly twenty percent of the people ending up living on the street have some kind of substance use disorder. One can’t help but wonder if living on the street made people more vulnerable to developing substance use disorders or people end up living on the street because they suffer from substance use disorder. Either way, it shows the lack of care, help and resources our society provide to this group of people.

For the past few years, the opioid crisis in this country has gotten so out of hand and it almost seems like everyone could offer their personal story about someone they know in their lives who either overdosed or is still recovering from opioid addiction. I personally know two people who are recovering heroin addiction, they are my brother-in-law and a good friend of mine who is a navy veteran. So I can testify to the devastating consequences substance abuse impose on families and communities. However, the way our society treat people who suffer from substance use disorder is more punitive than treatment-based. With adults dying left and right because of overdose, children are growing up without parents. Based on what I learned from courses on developmental psychology and psychology of stress, these children are more likely to develop mental illness including substance use disorder when they grow up. The vicious cycle continues.

In my opinion, the first step towards solving this crisis is for the society as a whole to treat people who are suffering from substance use disorders not as addicts, but as patients who need help from all of us. The more of a taboo substance abuse becomes, the less we are willing to talk about it and the less resources will be allocated to treating patients with substance use disorders. We are willing to call someone who has food addiction a person who suffers from a eating disorder, there is no reason why we can’t stop calling people who suffer from substance use disorders “drug addicts” and start treating them as ordinary patients with a serious mental illness.

I also believe more resources should be allocated into damage control caused by heroin addiction. According to NPR news, Philadelphia, which has a huge heroin addiction problem, is going to implement safe injection sites in the city soon. Other progressive cities such as San Francisco is reported to follow suit soon. People who suffer from drug use disorder can inject drugs in a health-care setting under the supervision of a RN or doctor. This innovating program is aimed at reducing the overdose rate. Although a lot of push backs from the communities where the safe injection sites are located are expected and understandable. It would be interesting to see more debate on safe injection sites in the future.

References:

(2014, June 20). Homelessness and Housing. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-housing

Gordon, E. (2018, January 24). Whats Next For Safe Injection Sites In Philadelphia?  Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/24/580255140/whats-next-for-safe-injection-sites-in-philadelphia

The pressure of society has its way of manipulating thoughts, opinions, and even our actions and they can restructure a person and shape them into someone they never thought they would be.  The pressures of everyday life and ideas of perfection can destroy a person and their self-image so deeply that there can seem like there is no hope of ever coming back to who they once were. How does this affect the everyday mother?  The everyday duties of a mother can be so overwhelming, that one day she wakes up and is surrounded by so many “to-do’s” and pending judgments from others she can’t even manage to find her way out of bed.  Once upon a time, a super-mom’s only kryptonite could be seen as her mother-in-law and the inevitable criticism that would follow her uninvited visits.  However, today’s society offers a great deal more pressure.  From social media to news outlets, to the PTA, a mother faces not only the opinions of her family, but those on the outside looking in.  A mother is not only judged by her performance, but by the diapers she uses and the method she chooses to feed her child.  A mother is shamed when she publically breastfeeds but then in the seat next to her, a woman is shamed for formula feeding her new born.  The pressure does not stop there.  A mother faces criticism if she is a working mom and is accused of abandoning her children. However, a woman is seen as a failure and freeloader if she chooses to stay at home and nurture her children there.  She again is faced with the choice of public school vs. private school vs. homeschooling.  If she chooses to home school, she is seen as shielding her children from reality.  If she chooses private school, she is viewed as being too snobby for the rest of society.  If she chooses public school for her children, she is criticized for not offering her children the greatest sense of security and highest levels of education.  Does it stop there? Not in the least.  A mother also faces criticism on the grounds of discipline.  Is spanking an appropriate form of reprimand or should one choose a milder form of punishment? Should one go with a positive reinforcement method that offers more exposure to natural consequence or should one choose a punishment for the purpose of extinguishing unwanted behaviors.  Do members of society account for the differences between each child before they judge the mother or do they consider the unexpected variables that each child may bring, such as a diagnosis of Autism, ADHD, or health issues that must be handled on an individual basis?  The decisions are countless that a mother must make for her children, but then again, so are the aggressive judgments of the rest of the world.  A mother can quickly fall in into a depressive state if she does not secure a place to help her handle the overwhelming tasks that motherhood demands.

So what can be done to help moms who face these every day struggles? Well, until the winds of change shift in favor of the earthly bearers of children and their individual parenting methods and bring silence to the disparagers of motherhood, it is up to her to seek guidance from a licensed professional if her situation merits this.  Even for a woman who is well versed in the art of child rearing, the pressures can be too great to handle on her own.  One of the best ways a mother can successfully overcome depressive states is to seek counseling rather than attempting to handle the situation alone.  An article published by parents.com, titled “How Depression Affects Your Family”, states:  As many as two thirds of all depressed women suffer in silence. Perhaps this is because of the stigma attached to mental illness — or because mothers are so focused on their families that they disregard their own well-being, says Peter Jensen, M.D., director of the Center for the Advancement of Children’s Health at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City. Even moms who recognize their symptoms often assume they’re just stressed and will eventually snap out of it — or they try to tough it out on their own for fear of being considered weak or crazy. However, research has found that the longer your symptoms go untreated, the more likely you’ll be to suffer from future episodes of depression. Getting treatment is as essential for depression as it is for diabetes, because moderate to severe depression rarely goes away on its own” (Kase, Lori Miller, 2003).  The added stress of the stigma regarding mental illness often adds to a mother’s depression. Although there may not appear to be a quick fix to the stigmatic appearance of counseling, the benefits of counseling far outweigh a label that mothers may fear is being placed upon them. A question that could be asked is how does counseling benefit a mother who is depressed? In many cases, counseling can help a mother the same way it can help anyone else cope with depression and anxiety.  According to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, “talk therapy (also known as psychotherapy) can be an important part of treatment for depression or bipolar disorder. A good therapist can help you cope with feelings, problem solve and change behavior patterns that may contribute to your symptoms” (dbsalliance.org, 2016).  Talk therapy counseling helps mothers to work through her issues that are in the present.  Although a therapist may offer time to reflect on past issues, the primary focus is on her present state of mind and what is triggering those feelings. Talk therapy offers so many benefits when it comes to overcoming depression.  Some of those areas are: an understanding of the current mental health conditions, define and reach wellness goals, overcome fears and insecurities, coping with stress, making sense of any past experiences that may have been traumatic, it also helps to separate true personality from moods caused by current conditions, identify triggers that may worsen symptoms, improve relationships with family and friends, and it helps to develop a plan for coping with crisis.  In addition, talk therapy also helps the patient learn why things are bothersome and what to do about them. (dbsalliance.org, 2016).  In some cases, further types of counseling may be required, such as seeking the assistance of a psychiatrist if the situation merits it.

Motherhood can be an overwhelming time, but it can also produce the best memories and experiences a person can have. The joys can far outweigh the negativity when feelings and thoughts are addressed immediately and appropriately. Counseling is essential for those who are overwhelmed and depressed in order to maximize the joy and positive experiences in their lives.  Mothers can combat incidences of depression with help and without shame in order to provide the best futures for their children, their families, and themselves.

References:

Kase, Lori Miller. (2003). How Depression Affects Your Family. Parents. Retrieved from https://www.parents.com/baby/health/postpartum-depression/how-depression-affects-your-family/

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance. 2016. Therapy. Retrieved from http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=wellness_brochures_psychotherapy

We can all admit it- we’ve been in a room full of people and haven’t said a single word to anyone. Instead, we’ve been on our phones; checking social media or playing a game. No one can deny the numerous benefits to instant knowledge that technology provides us with. But, when is enough, enough? Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs foresee our society today as being dependent on our devices to the point where human interaction suffers? Today, anxiety disorders run rampant in emerging adults, being the second most reported psychological disability in this age group. (Vannucci, Flannery, Ohannessian, 2017) There seems to be a link between the use of social media and the rates of anxiety in our generation, and that is a problem. Social media allows us to connect with others, but is it really helping us become more social?

Social anxiety is a disorder marked in the DSM-IV that highlights “a persistent fear of one or more social or performance situations in which the person is exposed to unfamiliar people or possible scrutiny by others.” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012) Social media may harbor a safe haven for people who struggle to interact with people in social situations. In fact, it may go as far as allowing persons with anxiety disorders to develop avoidant coping strategies and allow them to isolate themselves socially. (Vannucci, et al., 2017) Social media allows people to interact without the fear of face-to-face conversation and anticipated embarrassment (a hallmark of social anxiety disorders), but this also keeps their socialization limited to a phone or computer.

Our ability as emerging adults to communicate with the person next to us seems to be dwindling. Author and motivational speaker, Simon Sinek discusses how we enter meetings and go straight to our phone because “god forbid” we have to speak to the person next us. We have left a time of human interaction and networking, and moved to a time of LinkedIn. He has a great point of view on the dangers of social media. He highlights how dopamine is released and makes us feel good when we use social media. High levels of this neurotransmitter, or “brain chemical,” make us feel rewarded; and when using social media, our brains will secrete high levels of dopamine. What can be wrong with that? As Sinek points out, this causes an addiction to social media. When we are away from it, we experience low levels of dopamine, which can cause anxiety or depression. Social media’s addictive properties are what can make it dangerous. When we are without social media, we can become anxious. Watch a clip of an interview with Simon below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fN2DQ7yTNM

Social media may be a great tool to connect with others, but there are limitations to this. Our increasing rates of anxiety in our generation may be rooted in the dangers of social media. We are allowing a place for people to falsify human interaction and the expense of their own mental health. Social media may allow those with social anxiety to facilitate avoidant coping strategies and increase social isolation. It may also increase addictive tendencies in emerging adults, which may lead to withdrawal symptoms of anxiety and depression. Technology is a great advancement in our time, but needs to be watched carefully and better understood. We are not giving it enough caution in our world. Social media is barely socializing, it is allowing us to become a dependent, anti-social society.

References

Vannucci, A., Flannery, K. M., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2017). Social media use and anxiety in emerging adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 163-166.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Sinek, S., & King, L. (2017). Simon Sinek on millienials and social media addiction.

“Everyone can identify with a fragrant garden, with beauty of sunset, with the quiet of nature, with a warm cozy cottage” (Thomas kincade). This comment sums up the feelings that many people have about a beautiful, healthy environment. However, can we say we love our environment if we don’t protect it?

One of the main thrills of travelling is getting to enjoy the many breathtaking scenery that each destination has to offer. The infrastructure which ranges from elaborate skyscrapers to overhead highways, are some of the main things that make our environment beautiful. As human beings we are sometimes severely and quite understandably caught up by the aesthetic beauty of our environment. So much so that we sometimes neglect to consider the factors that can damage the environment. Because of some environmental changes like building cities and depleting interior locations, our beautiful environment is becoming damaged.

In many major cities in the United States, we see enormous buildings, cemented pavements and decorated streets. One thing that is hardly evident is trees and plant life. The absence of these in our surroundings has proven to be damaging to our environment. According to the National Geographic “Trees also play a critical role in absorbing the greenhouse gases that fuel global warming. Fewer forests means larger amounts of greenhouse gases  entering the atmosphere—and increased speed and severity of global warming” (nationalgeographic.com, 2018).  This statement emphasizes the importance of trees to preventing global warming in the environment. Preventing global warming is a serious concern that demands the efforts of all humans.

Ever so often plants and animals are displaced from their forested homes because of humans need for space and human desire to transform the environment. This often results in wiping out of animal species and loss of nature. The damaging effects this action causes are tremendous. Current environmental problems make us vulnerable to disasters and tragedies, now and in the future…Balance of natural processes like pollination is crucial to the survival of the eco-system and human activity threatens the same. Another example is the destruction of coral reefs in the various oceans, which support the rich marine life. (conserveenergyfuture.com).

We all can agree that living in a scenic, spacious environment is important to us. Also, the need to build factories are necessary. However, refusing to deliberate on the amount of damages these desires cause on our environment puts all of us in harms way. Like many environmentalists reiterate, our habits are negatively affecting our environment. We may not in future be able to enjoy all that a healthy environment has to offer if we don’t implement good practices to preserve it.

Nationalgeographic.com. (2018). Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet. [online] Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/#close [Accessed 5 Feb. 2018].

Conserve Energy Future. (2018). 15 Current Environmental Problems That Our World is Facing – Conserve Energy Future. [online] Available at: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/15-current-environmental-problems.php [Accessed 6 Feb. 2018].

The environment has been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember. I was a child with exceptionally lofty expectations for the world and the people around me: I looked down on my peers who preferred Ren and Stimpy to Captain Planet, I scoured Zoobooks instead of MAD magazine, and during recess I would stay inside to read about endangered animals while angrily stewing over the appalling injustice of poaching. I was a budding eco-warrior and, I’m sure, a complete nightmare for my parents and teachers. Then, when I was about 20, I found that I had become a person who said nothing when my friends dropped their cigarette butts on the ground. What caused me to remain silent, and was there any value in speaking up in the first place?

When I initially became aware of the fact that my friends were littering by dropping their cigarette butts on the ground, I justified my silence by telling myself that the butts are really quite tiny, and they’re likely built to be biodegradable due to environmental regulations. Unfortunately, upon further research this excuse falls apart: cigarettes are not biodegradable, as they contain plastic filters. Worse, when the butts get swept into rivers and storm drains, they just lay there and slowly release toxic chemicals that can be extremely harmful to both the environment and human health (Kaufman, 2009).  In addition to this, cigarette butts make up 28-30% of all litter nationwide (not by volume, but by number), and the City of San Francisco alone spends about 11 million dollars a year cleaning up cigarette litter. Now while I did look up these statistics for the purpose of this blog posting, I had actually done the same research when I found myself to be uncomfortable with my friends’ behavior.

Despite being armed with cigarette-butt knowledge, I still didn’t speak up when my friends dropped their butts on the ground. Sometimes I would tell myself that I actually didn’t remember the information properly, and that it wasn’t worth bringing up if I wasn’t positive about what I had read. It would be irresponsible of me to spread inaccurate information, after all. In fact, I told myself, I rarely actually saw cigarette butts in the streets where I lived, or at my school, or at many of the other places we would go, so how bad could the problem be, really? I can now safely say that what was going on in my head was cognitive dissonance, which can be described as holding beliefs or cognitions that are in direct contrast with each other (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). In my case, I was specifically was suffering from post-decisional dissonance, which is the dissonance that results after a decision was made, and the efforts made to justify the decision. I saw myself as a fantastic environmentalist, which was at direct odds with the fact that a fantastic environmentalist wouldn’t just stand by while people littered around her. Captain Planet certainly wouldn’t have taken that behavior sitting down.

My silence in the face of my friends’ littering unfortunately fed into their feelings of false consensus, which occurs when people assume that those around them act and think like them when, in reality, they don’t. My friends assumed that I was fine with their behavior, even though I was actually quite opposed to it.  My passivity did nothing to improve my friends littering behavior (why would it?), which makes sense in light of research that indicates that the behavior of a group of friends largely informs the behavior of an individual member of that group. According to their 2014 study, Long, Harré, and Atkinson were able to conclude that littering and recycling rates could be predicted by the littering and recycling rates of close friends. Throughout the course of this study, the researchers studied the recycling and littering rate of a group of high school students and then performed an intervention which included creating a social network and creating focus groups to encourage positive waste behavior. The results of the intervention indicated that recycling and avoiding littering became a social norm within the study group, which improved overall recycling and littering behaviors. Additionally, the focus groups gave students a vocal outlet so that others could hear their actual opinions on littering, and students could be held responsible by their peers for their words and actions.

The study performed by Long, Harré, and Atkinson (2014) clearly illustrates the power of social pressures over human behavior, and empowers others to be vocal about their positive behaviors in the hopes that others in their orbit will follow-suit. My own journey reinforces the idea of the power of education as a tool to create cognitive dissonance, which will eventually need to be reconciled within an individual – hopefully in a positive direction.  Finally, we don’t have to passively accept the norms, because until we actually talk about them we are just guessing at what they actually are in the first place. We can create our own norms and become influences for positive change, and perhaps even get our friends to stop throwing their cigarette butts on the ground.

References:

Kaufman, L. (2009, May 28). Cigarette Butts: Tiny Trash That Piles Up. Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/29cigarettes.html

Long, J., Harré, N., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2014). Understanding change in recycling and littering behavior across a school social network. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(3-4), 462-74. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9613-3

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