Search
Girls in STEM
About FAWE Elearning
We at FAWE have built this platform to aid learners, trainers and mentors get practical help with content, an interactive platform and tools to power their teaching and learning of STEM subjects
Search
More Girls in STEM
Histoires inspirantes de femmes scientifiques africainesUncategorized
PRODUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL COLOSTRUM TO REDUCE CALF MORTALITY AND INCREASE THEIR PERFORMANCEUncategorized
- Inspiring stories from African women scientistsUncategorized
Addressing gender stereotypes in the classroomGeneral
Gender assumptions that challenge a quality education for girls in UgandaEducation
Strengthening Gender Responsive Pedagogy for STEM in UgandaEducation
RESPECT FOR WOMEN IS PARAMOUNTNetworking
Social psychologists, like sociologists, are interested in social values, culture, and groups.They focus, however, on the individual in the social context rather than the social context per se.Social psychologists, like psychologists, are also interested in personal processes, including personality, perception, memory, and learning.They prefer, however, to focus on the way the social context and psychological processes influence each other.Their approach, then, is two-fold, for they focus on:
1.Intrapersonal Processes: psychological processes acting at the individual level
2.Interpersonal Processes: Social, Interactional Processes, Operating Between People
*Group Behavior
II. Obedience: An Example
III. The Perspective: Why Obedience?
IV. Beyond Obedience
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance argues that cognitive inconsistency creates a state of psychological tension that we are motivated to reduce.When we engage in counter-attitudinal behavior we reduce the ensuing dissonance by changing our attitude to match our behavior. Dissonance offers an explanation for a number of tendencies foractions to influence our attitudes, including change following counter-attitudinal advocacy, spreading of alternatives and selective exposure after making choices, the tendency to justify the effort we expend to reach our goals, and reactions toinformation that disconfirms our beliefs.
Kitty Genovese Incident in Queens, New York
Winston Moseley stabbed Kitty Genovese outside of her apartment in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York.When one of her neighbors shouted at him Moseley retreated to his car. But no one called the police, and Moseley returned 20 minutes later to renew his attack.He found Genovese hiding in the stairwell of her apartment building.He raped her and stabbed her to death. The police receive the first call from a witness at 3:50.Theyare on the scene in two minutes, but 37 minutes after the first attack.Journalists who described the incident claimed that as many as 38 people witnessed the murder, yet no one helped
Note:Beware of the “Anti-social” Bias
Social psychological causes can be invisible to the untrained eye (e.g., explaining Milgram study)
[Are your choices based on your personal values, or do they reflect social pressures?]
Social psychological explanations are consistent, in many cases, with common sense, but common sense is not a reliable guide for explaining social behavior.
building
What is your “functional distance” with another person – this may be the key
1) Creates feeling of belonging to a group (in-group bias)
2) We want to view those we spend time with as compatible and friendly…maximizes chance of forming a relationship
Mere Exposure Effect: tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more after repeated exposures.
“They grow on us”
Subjects told they were matched by computer to another person based on personality, aptitude scores, etc…but actually they were randomly assigned to another individual (couples).Had a 2.5 hour “dance”, then completed rating scales. Only one factor appeared from all data – the more physically attractive the person was rated by their match, the more likely they were liked and wanted to be seen again by their match (FOR BOTH GENDERS)
1) This phenomenon includes intelligence
2) Those unusual couples – usually some other factor present…bring something of value to the relationship. For example, Prince Charles and Princess Diana
Was Tolstoy correct, that “love depends…on frequent meeting, and on the style in which the hair is done up, and on the color and cut of the dress”? To a point, YES.
But, as people become more familiar, other factors become important:
2) Similarity of attitudes, beliefs, and values
3) But, does similarity lead to liking, or does liking lead to similarity?
1) Many studies have shown that people rate others (even a complete stranger) higher in terms of liking the more similar the other person’s attitudes are to their own.
2) How often does a radical feminist marry a conservative republican?
3) How often do we remain friends with someone whose values and attitudes are very different from our own?
4) This does NOT mean we need a mirror image of ourselves, but someone who compliments us
1) The more we like someone, the more apt we are to perceive us as similar
1) NO – despite the myth (they may “lust”, but not like or love – generally…there are exceptions)
2) We may be attracted to someone whose needs are different from ours, but often in ways that compliment our own.
3) David Buss “the tendency of opposites to marry, or mate…has never been reliably demonstrated, with a single exception of sex (males and females)”
Is it possible that there are no wolves, but that we are all just sheep?
Some quotes about groups:
Other people influence our thoughts, our emotions, and our behaviors. This assumption, axiomatic in social psychology and group dynamics, is inarguable. But does it explain why 39 people would make so permanent a decision of committing suicide?
A social psychological analysis of the Heaven’s Gate incident requires (at least) three parts.
First, why is the public, in general, so intrigued by the incident, and why do most people misunderstand it?
Second, what group level processes operate in such groups? Are these processes so powerful that they could induce a sane person into taking what appears to be an insane action?
Third, why would a group of people make such a horrific decision, with such drastic consequences?
The Heaven’s Gate group is news–big news. Newspapers around the world showed the special morgue truck needed to carry the multiple suicides. The groups’ web page was flooded with Internet hits. The media flocked to the site. Other news–wars, weather, and the basketball playoffs–took a backseat to suicide.
Why are people intrigued by groups that commit mass suicide? The intrigue stems, in part, from their unusualness. But the intrigue also derives from misunderstanding.
A 1978 a representative sample of Americans were asked “Why do you think people become involved in cults?” (Gallup, 1978, p.275). Most people blamed the personality characteristics and flaws of the cult members. They were seeking:
A “father figure;” they were “unhappy” or “gullible” or “searching for a deeper meaning to life;” they were “mentally disturbed,” “escapists,” or addicted to drugs.” And now people are arguing that its the Internet that did it: The WEB is to blame for the spread of bizarre ideas about UFOs and Christianity.
These explanations are all simplistic ones–they demean the group members, blaming their personalities or their weaknesses since their actions make no sense to us.
When we read about the individuals in Heaven’s Gate we assume they are weak, gullible people who are easily influenced by others. When we read that 39 people committed suicide, we immediately assume that some leader brainwashed them. That they were tortured, forced to watch indoctrination videos, injected with mind-altering drugs, or deprived of sleep for days. Yet they weren’t
Picture in your mind a member of Heaven’s Gate. Who do you see? A brainwashed devotee mumbling her prayers mindlessly. A weak-kneed follower who blindly follows Elder Jonathan’s orders? A truthseeker who is so desperate to understand the meaning of life that she will accept an odd version replete with allusions to spaceships and UFOs?
These images of people who take part in nontraditional religious and social groups are unfair exaggerations. Although the word cult summons up thoughts of brainwashed automatons so intimidated by a charismatic leader that they can’t stand up for their rights, this stereotype is naive and incomplete. Everyone’s actions are controlled, in part, by social factors, and the actions of members of so-called cults require no reference to the “magical powers” of a leader or the “twisted” personalities of the followers.
What are these group-level processes?
Three Factors: INFORMATIONAL, NORMATIVE, and INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
First: Information Influence
One member of a religious group describes his first meeting with a cult as: It
Was strange, but the intensity of the two days left me much clearer about why I had been so uncertain, and where I might head for the future; it was as if a haze had been lifted. I began to understand things that had made no sense before, why most people rushed around for no reason, without any lasting sense of purpose. I had a sense that I could look for direction to my friends in the One-World Crusade.(quoted in M. Gallanter, 1989, p. 61, Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion, Oxford University Press).
Second: Normative Influence
Members feel obligated to conform to group norms that encouraged friendliness, cooperation, and total acceptance of the principles of the group. Self-reports of conversions are very similar in that people begin as skeptics, recognizing that the ideas are possibly bizarre and “kooky.” But over time they accept them as the their own. One writes:
I “went along in all the activities because they were sincere people doing things for a good cause, even though sometimes it seemed silly. “Eventually, though, he internalized the group’s norms.
Third: Interpersonal Influence
Cult members won’t take no for an answers. Such groups are often isolated, intensely cohesive, and led by an individual who brooks no disagreement. Nearly everyone recognizes that there is danger in “falling in” with the members of cult, for even though we believe that we are individualists who make up our own minds, we intuitively realize that such a group could change us from who were are now into one of “them.”
Studies of radical religious groups describe very similar dynamics across all the groups: intense cohesiveness, public statements of principles, pressure placed on anyone who dissents, ostracism from the group for disagreement, strong rewards for agreement with the group’s ideals.
As Dr. Forsyth States:
I am the first to admit that an explanation that stress normal, everyday sorts of determinants of behavior seems inadequate to explain such abnormal, unusual behavior as mass suicide. Yet the law of parsimony requires nothing more if this basic account is sufficient. Informational, normative, and interpersonal influence processes guide us constantly. In ambiguous situations, other people’s actions provide us with the social proof we need to make our own choices. If it’s OK for them, we assume it must be OK for us. And should we fail to match the expectations of those around us, they will be pleased to guide us back to the right path. We may feel the need to dehumanize the group for its actions by calling them crazy or hypothesizing weird social forces that constrained them, but in the end their actions stem from the same processes that guide the behavior of the accountant crunching numbers for a client, the gang member facing down a rival, the soldier readying for another patrol, or the frat boy drinking to heavily at keg party.
When people must make important decisions, they turn to groups.
Groups, however, don’t always make good decisions. JURIES sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented. COMMUNITY GROUPS take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications. MILITARY STRATEGISTS concoct plans that seem, in retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. But such a disastrous decision requires special explanation.
Groupthink, which was coined by Irving Janis in his classic book Victims of Groupthink, is considered a disease that infects healthy groups, rendering them inefficient, unproductive, and irrational.
Did Heaven’s Gate suffer from groupthink? Janis has identified a number of causes of groupthink, and many were likely operating in the Heaven’s Gate group.
But extreme cohesiveness can be dangerous. When cohesiveness intensifies, members become more likely to accept the goals, decisions, and norms of the group without reservation. Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do anything that goes against the grain of the group, and the number of internal disagreements–so necessary for good decision making – decreases.
Bottom Line
ASSIGNMENT : Social Psychology Assignment MARKS : 20 DURATION : 24 hours