Archives

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
16
Nov 16

Emotional effects of tough election among Americans in 2016

After the big political change we just experienced, the election of Donald Trump, many citizens are feeling a social burden because they believe the elected president is not fit for the job. It is very unfortunate that social changes like this happen and it does, for fact, affect each and every single one of us. No matter if we are living bad or god times, the public opinion is always an essential component of politics (Bermeo, & Bartels, 2014). Apparently, this time around the public opinion has not been taken into consideration. When social changes like this happen, the population feels insecure and threatened by different social values that do not comply with their expectancies. Thus, their behavior change because they experience cognitive dissonance (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013, p. 170). This election seemed to cause a big wave of public compliance, where many people who did not even supported the elected president voted without believing that the results would cause national frustration (Aronson, at al., 2013, p. 201).

To reduce the distress caused by the situation, social psychologists may need to intervene and develop social programs that are able to create conformity in the population. Conformity in a social scale happens when we, the population make changes on our behavior to accept and comply with others’ expectations (Aronson, at al., 2013, p. 199); which means that soon or later we may have to accept the results of the campaign and cross fingers that we do not get hit by horrible presidential choices. I know that the feeling of expectations may cause anxiety and other psychological effects, but we will have to be flexible and ready for adjustments in our social environment. This process is painful sometimes, but it happens every time a new president is elected. Thus, one way social psychologists will get ready for this dramatic change is by setting up participatory action research all around the country, as it is intended to do research and contribute to social changes (PSU, WC, Psych 424, lesson 13, 2016). Applied social psychology in the next few years will probably be a high stake for all of us because its’ fundamental idea is to develop strategies that improve individual or group social interactions, and decrease practical problems (Schneider, Grumman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 8). If the political burden increases, they definitely will be usefully doing research and developing active social programs that can change social behavior.

This is also an opportunity to community psychology to get into practice and integrate research with actions that will effectively change our views about our social situation (Schneider, Grumman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 275). Using participatory action research they will assess our political, social and economic values as part of research methods and applications (Brydon, 1997). Created in the 1970’s, this source of research was initially criticized because there has always been a belief that psychologists should never mix their personal values to their profession, as it can cause conflict of interests (PSU, WC, Psych 424, lesson 13, 2016). In certain circumstances, like the political scenario we are living now, it can be a positive research method to be used. The only way it can misused is if researchers tries to use their work to make personal implications, which is known as activist research and can be a misleading way to influence members of the social environment to follow constructs that may or may not be completely accurate (PSU, WC, Psych 424, lesson 13, 2016). We should not expect any activism to happen in this case, but since it involves politics, there is always a chance that social influence will diverge from its original intent, because this is a common characteristic of politics anyways. However, we should never give up on our social expectations, as we should defend our constructs with a sensitive and rationale manner to achieve a common goal.

Hopefully, our future is not going to be as bitter as we think it will. If we get to that point, applied social psychology will definitely stand by us to help find social solutions. Let’s be positive by now, and try our best to understand how to fit into this new social environment, it may help to control our burden. Democracy isn’t always an easy process, but we cannot lose our hope (Corazzini, Kube, Maréchal, & Nicolò, 2014).

 

References:

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2013). Social psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Bermeo, N., & Bartels, L. (2014). Mass politics in tough times: Opinions, votes and protest in the great recession: Opinions, votes and protest in the great recession. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357505.001.0001. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/lib/pennstate/reader.action?docID=10812617

Brydon‐Miller, M. (1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 657-666. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00042. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02454.x/epdf

Corazzini, L., Kube, S., Maréchal, M., & Nicolò, A. (2014). Elections and Deceptions: An Experimental Study on the Behavioral Effects of Democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 579-592. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/24363508

Penn State University, World Campus (Fall, 2016). Psych 424-Lesson 13 – Social Change. Retrieved at

https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802487/discussion_topics/11378503?module_item_id=21234006

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

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
18
Oct 15

“Inside” a Jury

Having previously served on a jury, the reading for this week’s lesson captured my full attention.  Reviewing the implications of the legal system and its processes was interesting to learn about, particularly with respect to social psychology.  Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) discussed the influence of jury size, impartiality, and most the intriguing – inadmissible evidence.  At first I didn’t really see the difference in why size mattered.  Whether it’s 6 or 12, wouldn’t a fair verdict be given?  A resounding no was found in reviewing Asch’s (as cited in Schneider et al, 2012) study on conformity and it highlights why size matters.  According to his findings, the pressure to conform is easier to resist when an ally is found within the group.  Being a minority member in a group of 10-to-2 presents an easier opportunity to speak out than one composed of 5-to-1 (Schneider et al., 2012).

I saw this example first hand, as a decision was needed to determine if a prison guard abused his privileges. One by one, each juror went around the room stating how they felt and why the verdict of guilty should be given.  I had reservations about stating this and wanted to talk about it amongst the group.  However, feeling like an “outsider,” I was going to suppress my reluctance.  It wasn’t until the 10th juror, Adam, stated his opposing stance that I built up the resolve to share mine also.

Never really considering the impartiality needed, I can understand why care must be taken against specific biases.  Vidmar and Schuller (as cited in Schneider et al., 2012) described 4 types of prejudices that can affect a verdict.   With interest prejudice, the outcome would affect the juror in some respect, as they would have concerns of personal interests.  Specific prejudice occurs when a juror holds certain thoughts/beliefs on a subject that would interfere in providing a fair decision.  Similarly, generic prejudice can be considered to have certain views for or against a particular race, ethnicity, culture, gender, etc.  While normative prejudice is influenced by the community’s stance on the matter, thus interfering with the decision (Schneider et al., 2012).  Since all of these stances or attitudes can play a part in altering a decision, more stringent measures should be taken to guard against them.

The most fascinating aspect of the entire lesson was the influence of inadmissible evidence. How can you disregard something that was stated in the courtroom, despite the judge’s directive?  Or better yet, how can you not be affected by a tainted testimony? While some may be able to ignore statements that they have heard, I find it particularly hard not to attend to it and wondered if others are the same way.  Based on 3 experimental mock trials, with exposure to inadmissible evidence, Pickel (1995) noted that the study showed that receiving a legal explanation did not aid in disregarding inadmissible evidence and depending on the circumstances, a legal explanation can backfire.  This suggests that others may find it just as difficult not to factor in the information they have heard or seen.

Since applied social psychology is ever evolving, many interventions and studies will take place to continue addressing these issues. While there are no “one-size fits all” answers, there is always an opportunity to find more effective ones.

 

References:

Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19(4), 407-424.  doi:10.1007/bf01499140

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Skip to toolbar