PSYCH 424 blog

We’ve all been in situations where the bystander effect may play a role in our actions. The text defines the bystander effect as a phenomena that states “people are less likely to help in an emergency when other bystanders are present.” The authors continue to explain that there is a diffusion of responsibility occurring. Others believe that with so many bystanders present, someone would assist someone in danger or in some other kind of emergency.

Either way, as I read various stories and anecdotes in the chapter on the criminal justice system, I couldn’t stop asking myself the moral calculus when these psychological principles are at play. Is someone afflicted by the bystander effect simply following their hardwired fight or flight mechanism or are people simply less inclined to engage with strangers compared to humans in past centuries?

I feel as if there has to be some sort of understanding on the part of those not intervening. The text tells the story of Matti Baranovski. Baranovski was killed by robbers in a playground in 1999. The playground was surrounded by busy roads and multiple witnesses reported hearing screams for help while the attack occurred. However, no one intervened and the situation ended tragically. One witness stuck out to me who was quoted in a newspaper report as saying she thought there were weapons involved and was traveling with her two children. Can we really blame this woman for not physically intervening and potentially adding to the victim count? The bystander effect seems to be a natural self-protection mechanism. I’m curious however if more people would intervene if they were the only bystander in a situation like Matti’s killing.

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology : Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications.

This week’s article, which discusses participatory action research as a grassroots research  methodology sounds like the best way to engage marginalized communities in social change work. My only concern when reading about these work is that most researchers in academia are White and from the “Global North.” I would want to see this work led and carried out by researchers from the communities where the work is taking place.

The reason for this distinction is there is a potential for non-local ideas of what is right/normal to be imposed upon local groups, even with their input and ownership of the work. I was at a conference last year where a young White female researcher began to (slightly) criticize her research subjects because they weren’t conforming to her narrow view of feminism. Another researcher (older White female) during the question and answer position rightly called out that a significant portion of her presentation was colonialist in nature and unwittingly espoused colonial practices.

I’m all for community driven and lead change I just would be curious to make sure that ideas from regions and cultures very different from the one being intervened with won’t be projected onto the research group. In the article we read, a lot of the pioneering researchers in this area seemed to be from the regions being discussed which I was happy to hear.

Participator action research seems to have great potential for social change as long as projects and the subsequent interventions are designed thoughtfully with community participants. It’s also important that researchers be objective and not impose their own moral/value system on subjects if they aren’t from the same culture. Even if they are from the same culture, researchers should be very clear on their motivation, reasoning, and desired outcomes for designing such community interventions, with desired outcomes being in line with those of community leaders.

Brydon-Miller, M. (1997), Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues, 53: 657-666. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02454.x

Chapters 15 and 17 were my favorites this semester. They aligned completely with my goals and interests and helped to solidify information I learned in my past work as a dating coach and matchmaker. I’ve long heard that proximity and repeat exposure tend to increase the likelihood of attraction forming between two people, but I wasn’t sure how people can make the leap from passing attraction to relationship in social scientifically validated processes.

When I was a matchmaker, I interviewed another, more experienced matchmaker based out of DC. She addressed the phenomena of both parties who are interested in each other waiting for a sign from the other person to truly feel comfortable and able to open up and show interest in return. She basically noted how most people end up waiting and then nothing ever happens. Reading chapter 15, I was reminded at how easy dating and connection could be if we just let ourselves be open to the process, including disappointment and rejection.

My favorite concept was that of attribution retraining and learning how to view the world as it is and not through the frames of pain and hurt that we’ve learned to interpret others actions through. By learning to detached from the process of dating, and any sort of relationship building, we can move into it wholehearted and more resilient to negative outcomes.

If we can learn not to attribute negative or positive things in such a way that limits our self world and sense of agency, we can have far better outcomes connecting with others in a way that is authentic, healthy, and guided by ones values and boundaries.

As a parent I think this topic is underrated in modern society.  When I was growing up there was not as much focus on Early Education as there is now.  We have College programs that exist primarily for children under 5 years old that are new to the industry.  Entire companies provide resources to start learning and social skills as a base for later life.  While all of this is well developed underlying research is bare and not documented.

My approach would be using a very broad example of Social Change research on how varies programs are changing Early Education.  My first reference is a 10-year project from Europe which will cover multiple “classes” of students across their first 3 years of learning. Areas are not limited to one group but rather very diverse.  The point of allowing women to enter the workforce if they want is interesting from a choice perspective. (1)

Besides the formal aspects of education there are also social skills that are just as important.  We learn these from our own family as well as outside of it.  My second reference goes into details on Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory and how children are impacted by their relationships at an early age.  This study is much more formal one than my previous reference and I feel they balance each other out.

Overall, this topic might be considered “dry” for some but once you have children it becomes all the more important.  I’m glad to see an increase in resources for this field as well as better studies being produced.  It even makes you wonder if these occurred earlier what changes would have occurred for previous generations?

References:

• https://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/15/08/delivering-social-change-through-childcare
• https://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=etd

Throughout the past several years, there have been many movements toward social change. We have seen the start of the Black Lives Matter movement, the #MeToo movement, the Schools Strike for Climate, and the progression of the LGBTQI+ movement. Whether or not someone agrees with what these movements stand fore, they have all had some great success through different media channels.

Years and years ago social movements used television, newspapers, and radio to spread their messages and oftentimes had to pay money and the information would only be able to reach a limited number of people unless those movements became national news. Today, however, social movements and social change can happen more quickly as they have access to many media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Tiktok, Instagram, Reddit, and plenty of others. With these channels being free and everyone having access to them, it gives anyone the option to spread their message (no matter the message, good or bad).

Popular media channels such as television, radio, and newspapers pick and choose what they want to post and can have biases in what they share, therefore what people can see is limited and what is interesting and news to someone could mean nothing to someone else. Social media channels are great because they allow anyone to share what they think is important or what they think needs attention and those that are interested can engage if they would like to. I know that for myself it’s quite possible to see things posted on social media before the news channels even get ahold of it, which shows how essential social media can be at getting information out quickly. Especially when there was a lot happening during the peak of the BLM movement, I was seeing so many things on Twitter and Instagram before I saw them on the news a couple days later. I remember the first stuff I saw about George Floyd was through Twitter and many people were posting the police officer calling for him to be fired.

Social media plays a major role in the development and progression of social change. People are able to communicate and share things quicker than ever before. Without social media and other channels that give everyone access, there could be so many things we would be unable to see because newspapers and radio channels don’t want to discuss it for whatever their reasons may be.

Something that I think is an important subject is sexual assault in the military. I am someone who married into the military, and I have lived on a military base for four years so far. In the few years that I’ve been in a military community, I have heard way too many things about sexual assault and how it tends to fly under the radar. Studies have shown that “9–13 % of servicewomen and 1–2 % of servicemen endure sexual assault per year of military employment” (Holland et al., 2014).  What is it about this community that causes sexual assault to seemingly not be taken seriously? What can be done to bring about an effective change?

Not only have I just been associated with the military for a little while now, but last year I began working for the government. Government workers who work on base are Department of Defense employees who then need to take a lot of the same training as those in the military. One of these is sexual assault training. It discusses sexual assault in the workplace and in military environments. To me, it’s interesting that this is a training that must be taken annually, yet it’s still such a persistent issue.

After doing a little research on the topic, the article I found discusses the effectiveness of this training. The goal of the research conducted was to assess “whether sexual assault training exposure (None, Minimal, Partial, or Comprehensive) predicted accurate knowledge of sexual assault resources and protocols” (Holland et al., 2014). According to the Department of Defense, most of the military is effectively trained (Holland et al., 2014). Yet the research found that context matters a lot and that when done right, the training has the ability to be effective, as those who receive comprehensive training experience lower incidences of sexual assault and have more knowledge of resources and protocols (Holland et al., 2014).

Because the training is over 10 years old, I think this is the change that needs to occur. More research needs to be conducted within this specific community in order to find the most effective intervention. As we know, social change research is very much about researching within a specific community since each community is so different. Differences in the training could be delivery, content, and the gender makeup of training groups since studies have shown a potential difference between same- or different-gender training groups (Holland et al., 2014).

Mass shootings have, unfortunately, become a frequent phenomenon in the United States over the past several years. Just yesterday I spent the day watching the aftermath of a mass shooting on a New York City subway unfold on live television. As I watched the press conferences, the witness and bystander testimonies, and expert testimonies, a recurring theme emerged: something needs to change. This is where we need social change research to help us find answers to all our questions about social problems like this. Where are the answers?

The media plays a large role in our perspectives of mass shooters. Mass shootings have become politicized to the point that misconceptions about mass shootings have spread like wildfire due to the types of media coverage these events receive. One common misconception being fueled by the media is that mental illness is most often the cause of mass shootings. Social change research has proven that this is false (Metzl et al., 2015). Studies show that these events are more closely correlated with gun access than they are with mental illness. While I was watching the news following the mass shooting in New York City, the news reporters were periodically stressing the importance of seeking mental health treatment or getting a loved one mental health treatment if homicidal ideations arise. While mental illness does play a role in some mass shootings, and it is important to seek help if needed, this was the primary message being branded in viewer’s minds.

Even though social change research studies such as those conducted by Metzl et al. (2015) clearly show a stronger correlation between mass shootings and access to guns than mental illness, these results are still not at the forefront of the media coverage. Social change research is of the utmost importance when it comes to mass shooting interventions. We can easily acknowledge this but, ironically, social change research will still take a back seat to political bias. Gun control is a very controversial subject in American politics. To confirm that gun access is a primary reason for mass shootings, and to suggest that the general public should have restricted access to guns can be very upsetting for some people to hear or think about.

Numerous questions have been asked about mass shootings since they became a frequent phenomenon. Experts have been ready and have begun to answer some of these questions and questions about any other social problem with social change research. Unfortunately, the peer reviewed data is being cast into shadow in favor of politics and media-fueled misconceptions. It begs the question: how many other questions have been answered by social change research that have been overshadowed by political bias?

References:

Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American journal of public health, 105(2), 240-249.

In many of the psychology courses that I’ve taken here at Penn State, I’ve learned about the concept of instant versus delayed gratification. Basically what this means is instant gratification is often linked to children and impulse control. As famously done by scientists in a test called the marshmallow test they were able to measure a child’s impulse control through their desire for instant or delayed gratification of receiving the marshmallow.  As I was reading lesson 13 this popped in my head when I was reading about social traps (Gruman, 2016).

Social traps are short-term pleasure that leads to negative  outcomes due to what I believe as a lack of delayed gratification. This can mean anything from smoking to overeating to using pesticides.  Basically what this means is that people, individuals and companies may be doing things and taking resources from the environment that are going to have a negative impact long-term on their health and well-being however they are very convenient to use now.

As a BBH major this strikes hard for me because a lot of people that I see and learn about are struggling from obesity due to psychological issues often due to wanting instant gratification when it comes to food.  This is interesting to me because I have personally seen the first hand effects of what overeating can do to negatively impact someone’s body.  Social traps are a form of social dilemmas and this is because an individual is tasked with a choice to either help themselves or help the environment both short-term and long-term.

A specific example of a social trap would be if you are at a party and at this party you see individuals indulging in as many different foods as possible while also smoking cigarettes. and when you enter this party you don’t want to be the only one that’s not indulging in the food and smoking the cigarettes so as a result of attending this event, you yourself were also engaging in this behavior that may feel pleasurable now however in the long-term this will negatively impact your physical health and well-being.

Social traps are all around us and we should always be aware in order to help our health and well-being the most.  While it may be hard to say no to food at a fun party,  it is also possible to be aware that we need a sense of delayed gratification in order to stay healthy with our bodies and so that we don’t overindulge on the resources of our environment.   

Applied Social Psychology : Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Jamie A. Gruman, Frank W. Schneider, and Larry M. Coutts . SAGE Publications . 2016

As we learned in this lesson, there are two sides to every topic or multiple opinions surrounding that topic that can be studied and made the center of research experiments. \One of those topics that I’d like to discuss in depth is Substance Use Disorder; specifically people with SUDs. Not everyone who uses substances (ie. drugs and alcohol) regularly, has SUD.

First, I’d like to discuss exactly what Substance Use Disorder is. According to the NIMH “A substance use disorder (SUD) is a mental disorder that affects a person’s brain and behavior, leading to a person’s inability to control their use of substances such as legal or illegal drugs, alcohol, or medications. Symptoms can range from moderate to severe, with addiction being the most severe form of SUDs.

Second, the reason research related to SUD is social change research is because there are many dissenting opinions surrounding substance use and its relation to crime and death. There is a societal stigma surrounding people who use substances, for example, a study was conducted on the language we use to refer to people who use substances, and the results found that when the term “substance abuser” was used, individuals who were interviewed believed that “abuser” was less likely to benefit from treatment, and more likely to benefit from punishment and were blamed for their substance use as if they were choosing to use versus using language like: “individual who has a substance use disorder”. There were 314 participants ranging from different backgrounds including: “Half of participants worked in the healthcare field, while 20% were students, 29% worked outside healthcare or were unemployed or retired, and 5% did not report an occupation. They were 31 years old, on average (ranging from 17 to 68 years old), 81% were White, 76% were female, and half had a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education.” (Kelly, Dow & Westerhoff, 2010)

Social change surrounding this stigmatized issue is important because people with SUDs and people who use recreationally without SUD are being punished regularly for low level drug related misdemenors and continue to go in and out of being incarcerated which furthers their trauma everytime. And legislation is slowly changing with drug offenses surrounding certain substances, but people are still being harmed in this slow-going process that becomes a political issue for lawmakers to battle about, without really knowing the mental health issues that the individuals they keep creating laws to arrest are going through.

Kelly, J. F., Dow, S. J., & Westerhoff, C. (2010). Does our choice of substance-related terms influence perceptions of treatment need? An empirical investigation with two commonly used terms. Journal of Drug Issues, 40(4), 805-818.

Kelly, J. F., & Westerhoff, C. M. (2010). Does it matter how we refer to individuals with substance-related conditions? A randomized study of two commonly used terms. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(3), 202-207. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.10.010

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance use and co-occurring mental disorders. National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/substance-use-and-mental-health

Personal relationships refer to close connections between people formed by emotional bonds and interactions. These bonds often grow from and are strengthened by mutual experiences.

Personal relationships take many forms. For example in romantic relationships—being attracted to another person, forming romantic bonds, and getting married.

Theories argue that many human behaviors have a basis in our distant past. The assumption is that behaviors that are beneficial in passing on our genes will be carried on through generations. There are universal traits that are considered physically attractive; both sexes tend to be attracted to characteristics that signal health, youth, and reproductive capacity. Evolutionary arguments for mate selection should be universally applicable to all Homo sapiens and transcend culture. Gender plays a role in determination of desirable characteristics in a mate.

 As children form mental representations or schema based on our first bonded relationship – often with our mother or another caregiver. The motivation to form attachment is biologically based but the process of forming attachments is based on experience. If a child experiences love and affection, (s)he will come to see himself as worthy of love and attention. The working model will determine his relationship with other people and the way he sees himself in the future. It is believed that humans tend to reproduce the internal working model in later relationships.

Gruman, J.A.,Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Attraction is quite different from affiliation in the sense that attraction is a pickier process (Gruman et al., 2017). When someone feels attracted to another person it is because that particular person is desired (Gruman et al., 2017). The term attraction suggests that a powerful force of physics draws one individual to another (Gruman et al., 2017). However, attraction is not always a matter of taste or choice (Gruman et al., 2017). Proximity and familiarity are two interpersonal factors that create attraction (Gruman et al., 2017).

The proximity effect can be described as “the tendency for physical and psychological nearness to increase interpersonal liking” (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950 as cited in Gruman et al., 2017). Most relationships begin due to physical proximity (Gruman et al., 2017). Physical proximity can be described as being accessible to another person (Gruman et al., 2017). Physical proximity allows individuals to have frequent interactions and learn about each other (Gruman et al., 2017). The environment is a huge factor to consider when discussing proximity in the sense that some locations make people more approachable than others (Gruman et al., 2017).

Furthermore, frequent contact with an individual does not always work in the favor of attraction (Gruman et al., 2017). Another effect that is dubbed with the term “environmental spoiling” suggest that the more contact you have with an unpleasant person, the more you will dislike that individual (Ebbeson et al., 1976 as cited in Gruman et al., 2017). This effect usually only occurs when there are already preexisting feelings about the individual (Gruman et al., 2017). And in contrast, when there is not any preexisting feelings frequent contact creates attraction (Gruman et al., 2017).

This attraction forms because exposure increases another’s familiarity (Gruman et al., 2017). Familiarity can be described as a quality that most people find reassuring and pleasant (Gruman et al., 2017). Familiarity is beneficial because it promotes predictability (Gruman et al., 2017). People are drawn to predicable people because it offers them a sense of order and control (Gruman et al., 2017).

To conclude, attraction is not always a matter of taste or choice (Gruman et al., 2017). Proximity and familiarity are two interpersonal factors that create attraction (Gruman et al., 2017). Physical proximity allows individuals to have frequent interactions and learn about each other (Gruman et al., 2017). And the environment is a huge factor to consider when discussing proximity in the sense that some locations make people more approachable than others (Gruman et al., 2017). Attraction forms because exposure increases another’s familiarity (Gruman et al., 2017). Familiarity is beneficial because it promotes predictability and people are drawn to predicable people (Gruman et al., 2017).

References

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE.

Everybody lives somewhere, some people live on the beach while others might reside on a farm.  Some people even move around from a farm to a beach or from a beach to farm.  There are many reasons for why people want to move around, a few reasons can be education, job relocation or wanting to live in a new environment.  The principle of person-environment fit is another reason some people might move around if they have the opportunity to do so.

A person-environment fit is a fit between a person and the place that they live in (Gruman, 2016).  This can mean that if a cowboy moves to the big city, then it might not be a great fit because then the cowboy would have no horses to ride and cows to milk.  It’s important for a person to have a good person-environment fit so that they are positively interacting with their environment and not negatively impacted. 

When I was eight years old I moved from Atlanta, Georgia to Cincinnati, Ohio.  This was the first big move of my life and I thought that I would not like living in Ohio because it was not what I was used to.  When I got there I realized that Ohio was very familiar to the town that I grew up in in Georgia.  They were both suburbs and had friendly people living in them.

I would say that this move was a good person-environment fit for me because I was not shocked by the novelty of a new but similar suburban town.  I had a lot of fun living there and did not experience any sensory overload because my living conditions were extremely similar to the conditions that I was used to back home (Gruma, 2016). 

I then moved twice after that and experienced different things and got to personally test my person-environment fit in four different locations.  I have lived in a few places where I feel as though my individuality did not fit in with the environment and so I was able to leave to find a better environment.  I am lucky to have the opportunity to leave an environment because many individuals who experience a negative person-environment fit are forced to stay in that negative environment due to extending circumstances such as family obligations or monetary restrictions. 

Applied Social Psychology : Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Jamie A. Gruman, Frank W. Schneider, and Larry M. Coutts . SAGE Publications . 2016

I think that by saying jealousy can help a relationship and bring two people closer is almost equivalent to saying that infidelity can bring two people closer and help the relationship. Although this is not false in every single case, but to say one size fits all is wrong in my opinion. I also think it is wrong to normalize and accept paranoid/suspicious behavior in fear of humiliation and infidelity or the loss of your partner (Psychology Today, 2022). This is regardless of if the threat is real or imagined.

Jealousy in an intimate relationship may seem cute or attractive to an inexperienced person, but anyone who has been around the block a couple times, who has a firm grasp on what a healthy relationship is, would disagree. Jealousy is not synonymous with the anger or hurt felt through finding out your partner has been cheating or lying. To me, jealousy is an act of attempted control over a person or situation. You feel jealous because you cannot control the outcome of a situation or your partners thoughts/feelings.

How do we mitigate that? It is much easier said than done, as with most complexities. I think it is important to remind ourselves of a few things when engaging in relationships, especially new ones. For one, we cannot have control over everything, nor should we want to. Your partner, just like you, is going to do what they are going to do regardless of your insecurities or paranoia. If your partner decides to act shady, out of pocket, or however you want to word it. Just say thank you and move on. Like I said though, it is much easier said than done.

Going back to my first paragraph, there are many struggles or muddy waters than can arise while in a close relationship with someone. You have to take the good with the bad because obviously no one is perfect. However, that does not mean you have to accept actions of infidelity or jealousy. Each relationship is different, as is each person. Not all rules apply to all relationships and I think it is important to remember that. We can get too hung up on our own expectations with others and not allow the space for another to grow in order to meet them where they are at.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/jealousy

Psych 424

Blog #9

Shawn Campbell

Relationships/Everyday Life

Family impact on Social Psychology

Each of us have a family to some degree or another.  On the one side of the scale are people with very large and involved families.  This could be considered a stereotype of “everyone is related” and tend to host large gatherings.  The other side of the scale would be a person with no or limited family.  These could be orphans or just not very close knit of a family unit.  Most of us however fall in between the two extremes.

Families are a main part of social interactions and learning behavior in our early years before primary education starts.  While there is some variation in this, we tend to be closer to our parents then anyone else.  Extended family are also a major component depending on how close they are in our lives.  For many we learn basic skills at an early age and are greatly influenced later in life by our first couple years.  (1)

While this is supposed to be a positive experience there can be a less ideal side of things.  If the family relationship is negative that can be reflected on the individual.  A child observing or experiencing an abusive relationship will reflect that later in life and for some this can be a catalyst for their own problems.  It is important to note the cause and reoccurring nature of some of these events.  Families can have several generations of negative relationships before change is recognized as needed.

            There is a wide range of family interactions and results from them.  We can either learn to be compassionate, or to hate, or maybe none of the above.  The references I have below even make mention that more research to determine long term impacts is needed.  Suggestions and resources to help can be devised based on those outcomes.

References:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954612/
• https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/support/counseling-and-psychological-services/dysfunctional-family-relationships

The text defines power distance as “the extent to which people in a society accept inequalities based on social status, wealth, power, laws, and/or physical characteristics.(Gruman) Most countries listed as having a high power distance include many majority-Arab countries, Guatemala, and the Philippines. Countries with a lower power distance in the population include New Zealand, Northern European countries, and Great Britain.

As I read this section, I was confused about if the United States would be considered to have a high or low power distance. I’ll reason in this post for and against both sides and come to the conclusion that the United States has a lower power distance than the extreme countries, but higher than our European allies.

Firstly, a high power distance is indicated by the use of titles for elders of a community and a higher prevalence of collectivism. Collectivism is a societal focus on the community and nation as a whole. Family wishes have a much larger role in determining what a child grows up to do and what their beliefs are. Lower power distances countries display the opposite. The text uses the example of first names being used, even if the person being referred to is senior in position or age relative to the other participant in a conversation.

In the United State’s case, one can clearly see multiple different aspects of both low and high power distance. The population demonstrates a much higher sense of individualism than in Eastern countries. One point for a lower power distance. However, in my personal opinion, younger ages never refer to an older figure, especially one of higher power (be it an elected official, teacher, or other) by their first name. This demonstrates some level of elevated power distance. Even referring to an uncle or grandparent by their first name seems odd to me. In sum, the US is a melting pot of aspects of both extremes of the power distance scale. We employ more lower power distance which sustains the focus on an individual’s unique skills and allows them to foster.

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology : Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications.