Group Productivity
Are people more or less productive when they work in groups? What can be done to increase productivity in groups?
Group productivity has been the focus of a great deal of research in the psychology field particularly in relation to the productivity of groups in an employment, social or informational setting such as those of a focus group. Group dynamics have been studied across many different paradigms within psychology. The idea of group productivity becomes increasingly poignant when considering the formation and use of groups to determine our social and physical surroundings such as the employment of regulatory bodies and the use of juries, as well as our day-to-day social interactions and societal expectations.
More or Less?
The roles of groups and their responding productivity is an important area of study within social psychology as a great deal of the western world employs the formation of groups and social settings in order to in-still values as well as for educational purposes. Buunk, Cohen-Schotanus and Henk van Nek (2007) suggested that social comparisons within (educational training) groups could produce maladaptive results and increase stress. They found that this was particularly evident if the students identified downward, with groups that performed less well than if they identified upward, with groups that performed better. They also found that this created performance anxiety and thus reduced their productivity/ability. The study also found that group members engaged in comparison with others most commonly for self-evaluation purposes, with downward comparisons focused on self-enhancement and upward comparisons focusing on self-improvement. The suggestion posited by Buunk, Cohen-Schotanus and Henk van Nek (2007) was that educators might need to pay greater attention to the potentially maladaptive nature of within group comparisons.
Group Composition and Task difficulty
Whether people are more or less productive in a group as opposed to individually can depend on the nature of the task as well as the composition of the group. LePine (2005) stated that there was a positive correlation between the group member’s cognitive ability and their ability to adapt and perform as well as their goal orientation and the degree of difficulty of the task. Furthermore the study showed that a group that was composed of high-learning members and was faced with difficult goals was more likely to adapt and perform better than those that were staffed with high-performance members, which were considerably less likely to be able to adapt and perform. This study went further in its measures than most previous studies such as that of Behling, Coady, and Hopple (1967). The study measured the results at an individual outcome level making the results much more appropriate in the consideration of productivity of groups versus that of individuals. Critically the study was mainly focused on the result of an unexpected circumstance and the ability of the group to react as well as the importance of goal structure. This may have created a novelty affect and biased the results of individual productivity in a group setting.
Sex Differences
Benenson and Heath (2006) suggested that there is a causal relationship between sex differences and group productivity, based on social structure preferences of males and females. The study proposed that Males were more likely to withdraw and thus be less productive in a one-on-one (dyad) situation whereas females were more likely to withdraw in a group setting. The study also showed that females were more likely to focus on one individual within a group setting than their male counterparts. This study shows that the group dynamic may increase of decrease performance and productivity of its individual members in numerous ways many of which can be explained by social constructs within the group and the larger society the group belongs with. Critically this study was conducted on ninety-eight 10-year-old participants. Future research into the productivity in older age groups may be beneficial in determining if sex differences in regard to social structure continue into and throughout adulthood.
Culture
As suggested above the society and culture of the members of a group may also affect their productivity in numerous ways. Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, Hamilton and Peng (2007) stated that there is a difference in the tendency to engage in stereotyping between Chinese and American groups on the basis of group membership. The study showed that Chinese group members were more likely to engage in stereotyping than their American counter-parts when group membership was available as a source of dispositional inference. The study also showed that Chinese group members perceived culturally diverse groups as more entitative. Furthermore they credited more diverse groups and their members with more internally consistent dispositions. The results of this study suggest that the culture that a group belongs to can affect their productivity particularly when attributing certain values to groups on the basis of stereotyping. The study showed the propensity of mainland Chinese participants to engage in such stereotyping and thus brings up the concept of different cultural influences, expectations and acceptability within groups, such as those of the more collectivist nations like China and less collectivist nations including America.
Group Norms and Groupthink
All of the above components contribute to what is considered a group norm that is the baseline of the group make-up including the attributional composition of its members. Postmes, Spears and Cihangir (2001) suggested that group norms had a strong influence on the quality of the decisions the groups made as well as their tendency to engage in groupthink. The studied showed that a critical group norm improved the quality of the decision, whereas as a consensus group norm did not. Beyond this the study showed that group norms had no effect on individual decisions suggesting that it was limited to a group effect. This area of study is becoming increasingly important as the tendency of groups to engage in consensus norms and groupthink is becoming better established. It is also important in determining the content and preventative actions of these concepts.
Increased productivity
Productivity can be increased through greater sensitivity to the above aspects and the varying forms of group membership, group make-up and task context. By becoming aware of these aspects of group productivity and their potential to hinder performance it may be possible to decrease their effect. More specific details and methods of increasing productivity are as follows.
Abrams, Rutland, Cameron and Jennifer Ferrell (2007) suggested that in-group accountability played an important role in regulating group performance. The study revealed that participants (middle aged children) were strongly influenced by their peers in decision making about group members that have different characteristics than were perceived to be the norm and that as they became older they developed more sophisticated evaluative measures. The findings of this study suggest that to achieve a better group dynamic and greater productivity it may be beneficial to increase individually accountability for group activities. Critically further research should be conducted in order to establish whether an increase in such accountability at this age has the same results as adults as well as if increased accountability results in decreased contribution at an individual level.
De Dreu (2007) posited groups performed better through increased information sharing and a perceived sense of cooperative outcome interdependence. This resulted in an increase in the amount group members learnt and increases in how effect they were. De Dreu states that such findings within an organizational team setting (participants involved managers and their respective teams) allowed for this method to be generalized to organization settings as opposed to the confines of the laboratory. The results of this study suggest that to increase productivity within a group it may be useful to encourage the concept of cooperative interdependence outcomes.
In conclusion current research suggests that there is no definitive answer to whether people perform better in groups or individually as a group can be formed in virtually limitless scenarios with varying group member make-up. What has been suggested however is that there can be many components to increasing group productivity and decreasing hindrances, which is consistently addressed through the identification of such issues as well as group education. Measures such as increased accountability, identification of groupthink and cultural and individual group make-up are all well supported. Future research may be required in attempting to unify these concepts into effective methods of increasing group productivity. However a universal approach does not seem viable due to cultural and societal influences, culture specific initiatives may be more effective.
References:
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier: in-group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics. Developmental Psychology 43, (1), 134–148.
Behling, O., Coady, N., & Hopple, T. G. (1967). Small group adaptation to
unprogrammed change. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
2, 73–83.
Benenson, J.F., & Heath, A. (2006). Boys withdraw more in one-on-one interactions, whereas girls withdraw more in groups. Developmental Psychology 42, (2), 272–282
Buunk, A.P., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Henk van Nek, R. (2007) Why and how people engage in social comparison while learning social skills in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 11, (3), 140–152.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007) Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, (3), 628–638.
LePine, J.A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, (6), 1153–1167.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making
and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M.J., Hanilton, D.L., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2007)
Culture and Group Perception: Dispositional and Stereotypic InferencesAbout Novel and National Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, (4), 525–543.
Appendix A: Self-evaluation.
1. Theory
The use of key theoretical literature is evident in this web log. The use of up to date information and the establishment of the fundamental attributes of the question have been identified and addressed individually such as culture, individual make-up, group norms, group think and several strategies for increasing group productivity and reducing phenomena such as group think. The blog has attempted to use relevant theory to support the findings of research as well as engaging in critical analysis of each area.
2. Research
The use of up to date and relevant information was crucial to the accuracy of this essay due to the nature of the topic. Because the field of psychology is constantly updating the available information in regard to groups it was important to source recent information. The use of recent findings was particularly necessary when considering the cultural aspect of the topic. Critically the use of contradictory research may have been beneficial however the availability of this was limited.
3. Written Expression
MS word provides a Flesch reading ease of 28 and a flesch-Kincaid grade level of 12.0. The use of APA in this blog is not perfect. However this may be because of the nature of the medium as well as the users familiarity with this medium. All referencing attempted to stay within the confines of APA as much as possible. The use of sub-headings has increased the readability of the blog as well as providing the reader with a quick reference guide as to the content. Critically more attention may have been needed in keeping within APA limits and the use of graphics in aiding understanding may be beneficial.
4. Online engagement
Online engagement is the weakest of the 4 criteria. The blog was not used to the best of its ability in terms of its communication facilities and overall online engagement could have been much better. The blog does attempt to create a user friendly interface in terms of the structure of information as well as the actual content. Critically the blog had much greater potential for communication than what was used.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Blog 1 - Exploration of relationships between Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression
Introduction.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression are three social psychological concepts that have received a great deal of attention since the paradigm was first developed. This Web Log aims to identify and analyse the influence of these concepts on each other, there effect on individuals as well as; localised, wide, and worldwide societies. Examples of when all three have combined synergistically to result in incredible atrocities include the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 and Nazi Germany. On a smaller societal level the blue-eyed brown-eyed experiments run by Jane Elliot can show a societies capacity for prejudice and stereotyping. Ryan and Buirski (2001) suggested that at an individual level prejudice was not considered to be a displacement nor a projection of aggression. Instead they offered that prejudice was an “expression of a vulnerable, fragmentation-prone self-organization struggling to overcome a traumatic developmental history.” (Pg. 21). Studies such as the Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov and Sandra Duarte (2003) posit that the development of a theoretical framework that encompasses the personality dispositions of an individual, as well as the social and environmental situation that individual resides in at the time, is an important goal of social psychology today. The question than posed by Guimond et al is; does the personality of an individual dictate their prejudice, is it a reaction to their social environment or would combining the two provide a greater insight into the development and maintenance of prejudice?
Conceptual Relationship.
The conceptual links between prejudice and stereotyping are vast; one that has grown rapidly over the last decade is that humans have an implicit bias to engage in prejudice and stereotyping behaviours, sometimes without their conscious awareness or intent (Devine 2001). Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) which is a tool designed to measure the implicit biases of individuals towards out-group members. Devine states that such a tool if effective will allow for scientific scrutiny of an area previously available only to speculation on the part of psychoanalysts. Another paper examined the concept that prejudice and stereotyping may not be entirely within our cognitive control was the 2007 study by Gailliot et al. The results showed that our blood glucose levels affected self and social control, such as that used to stifle prejudice during an interracial interaction. Furthermore the study showed that a single act of self-control caused blood glucose levels to drop below the optimal level and individuals performed worse on subsequent control tasks. A glucose drink allowed blood glucose levels to be restored and performance increased to original levels.
Development of Prejudice.
The development of prejudice as an evolving phenomenon leads psychologists to analyse whether society as a whole is learning how to better hide their prejudices. Khan et al (2003) suggests that those who are most afraid of being viewed as prejudiced or engaging in stereotyping are also the most likely to engage in it. The study showed that warning participants that the results on two prejudice scales may be shown to others actually increased their tendency to make stereotypical errors and display prejudice. A completely counter-intuitive result, this may indicate that people do not always have cognitive control over their prejudices. The study posits that the increases in prejudice were a result of a decrease in cognitive control, not an increase in stereotype accessibility.
Many studies use stereotyping criteria to define prejudice as well as prejudicial criteria to define stereotyping. An example of this is the Bäckström and Björklund (2007) study they state that classical prejudice is involves engaging in stereotypical beliefs about a particular group in a particularly negative way. They go on further to identify the differences between classical and modern prejudice, which leads to the question has prejudice evolved? Is it possible to develop affective measures to inhibit prejudice if it has evolutionary capabilities? Wegener, Clark and Petty (2006) state that not all stereotyping is created equally. The study emphasizes the lack of literature on thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping, the results show that thoughtful stereotyping leads to beliefs which are harder to extinguish as well as more difficult to detect. These findings challenge many theories and practices such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which seeks to challenge the thought process by applying logic and reason. They go further to state that increased thought might fail to decrease stereotypic behaviours, but also may manufacture stereotypic beliefs that have a longer lasting impact.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a concept that could be linked to the Rwandan Genocide. The theory posits that social dominance of a group allows for prejudice to emerge and be maintained. The theory also suggests that a general attitudinal belief may be formed within the socially dominant class and that they generally prefer and support political programs which clearly define as well as maintain social hierarchies. Whereas people from lower SDO groups prefer egalitarian societies (Bäckström and Björklund 2007).
Stereotyping and Prejudice leads to Agression.
Parrott and Zeichner (2005), state that stereotyping and prejudice can lead to aggression. Their study of sexual prejudice and anger against homosexuals showed that such prejudice could result in physical aggression given the right precursors and context. The study also reported that such aggression was on the rise with a 40 percent increase in violence against homosexuals in the U.S from 1998 to 1999 and a 13 percent rise in antigay murders, despite the nations general decrease in murder rate. It is evident that sexual prejudice can result in an increased capacity for physical aggression but it does not appear that this is the only prejudice that can lead to aggressive behaviours. Keesee et al (2007) report that race prejudice may play a role in promoting aggression. In the United States the Department of Justice reported that black suspects are approximately five times as likely as their white counter parts (per capita) to die at the hands of a police officer. The study showed that community members and police officers both displayed robust racial bias in regard to the speed of their decision. It also showed that although community members set the decision criterion lower for black people over white people the police did not.
The relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression can be explored through the use of a concept map (see Appendix A). This model shows the theoretical and conceptual constitution of each as well as their varying interactions. The concept map is based solidly around the theoretical premises currently held about the make-up, contributory factors and relationships between the three concepts. It is evident that all three factors strongly influence one another. The relationship explored between all three in the concept map illustrates how all three factors can impact on one another in somewhat of a cyclical fashion. For example an individual has developed a sexual prejudice towards homosexuals may interact with a homosexual or even heterosexual that meets the stereotypical criterion and this can often result in aggression, particularly in males. Alternatively a homosexual individual may hold a prejudice towards people that he considers sexually discriminative or homophobic due to previously witnessed aggressive behaviours towards his group.
Concept Mapping.
The concept map was generated using a software package known as: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) CmapTools.
Appendix A: Concept map of the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and Agression.
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural Modeling of Generalized Prejudice The Role of Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Empathy. Journal of Individual Differences. 28, (1), 10–17.
Devine, P.G. (2001). Implicit Prejudice and Stereotyping: How Automatic Are They? Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81, (5), 757-759.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., Tice, D.M., Brewer, L.E., & Schmeichel, B.J. (2007). Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, (2), 325–336.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does Social Dominance Generate Prejudice? Integrating Individual and Contextual Determinants of Intergroup Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84, (4), 697–721.
Keesee, T., Sadler, M. S., Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C.M., Park, B., & Correll, J. (2007). Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, (6), 1006–1023.
Khan, S.R., Chasteen, A.L., Shaffer, L.M., Jacoby, L.L., Payne, K.B., & Lambert, A.J. (2003). Stereotypes as Dominant Responses: On the “Social Facilitation” of Prejudice in Anticipated Public Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 84, (2), 277–295.
Parrott, D.J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of Sexual Prejudice and Anger on Physical Aggression Toward Gay and Heterosexual Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 6, (1), 3–17.
Ryan, M.K., & Buirski, P. (2001) Prejudice as a Function of Self-Organization. Psychoanalytic psychology 18, (1), 21-36.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Clark, J.K. (2006). Not All Stereotyping Is Created Equal: Differential Consequences of Thoughtful Versus Nonthoughtful Stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, (1), 42–59.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression are three social psychological concepts that have received a great deal of attention since the paradigm was first developed. This Web Log aims to identify and analyse the influence of these concepts on each other, there effect on individuals as well as; localised, wide, and worldwide societies. Examples of when all three have combined synergistically to result in incredible atrocities include the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 and Nazi Germany. On a smaller societal level the blue-eyed brown-eyed experiments run by Jane Elliot can show a societies capacity for prejudice and stereotyping. Ryan and Buirski (2001) suggested that at an individual level prejudice was not considered to be a displacement nor a projection of aggression. Instead they offered that prejudice was an “expression of a vulnerable, fragmentation-prone self-organization struggling to overcome a traumatic developmental history.” (Pg. 21). Studies such as the Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov and Sandra Duarte (2003) posit that the development of a theoretical framework that encompasses the personality dispositions of an individual, as well as the social and environmental situation that individual resides in at the time, is an important goal of social psychology today. The question than posed by Guimond et al is; does the personality of an individual dictate their prejudice, is it a reaction to their social environment or would combining the two provide a greater insight into the development and maintenance of prejudice?
Conceptual Relationship.
The conceptual links between prejudice and stereotyping are vast; one that has grown rapidly over the last decade is that humans have an implicit bias to engage in prejudice and stereotyping behaviours, sometimes without their conscious awareness or intent (Devine 2001). Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) which is a tool designed to measure the implicit biases of individuals towards out-group members. Devine states that such a tool if effective will allow for scientific scrutiny of an area previously available only to speculation on the part of psychoanalysts. Another paper examined the concept that prejudice and stereotyping may not be entirely within our cognitive control was the 2007 study by Gailliot et al. The results showed that our blood glucose levels affected self and social control, such as that used to stifle prejudice during an interracial interaction. Furthermore the study showed that a single act of self-control caused blood glucose levels to drop below the optimal level and individuals performed worse on subsequent control tasks. A glucose drink allowed blood glucose levels to be restored and performance increased to original levels.
Development of Prejudice.
The development of prejudice as an evolving phenomenon leads psychologists to analyse whether society as a whole is learning how to better hide their prejudices. Khan et al (2003) suggests that those who are most afraid of being viewed as prejudiced or engaging in stereotyping are also the most likely to engage in it. The study showed that warning participants that the results on two prejudice scales may be shown to others actually increased their tendency to make stereotypical errors and display prejudice. A completely counter-intuitive result, this may indicate that people do not always have cognitive control over their prejudices. The study posits that the increases in prejudice were a result of a decrease in cognitive control, not an increase in stereotype accessibility.
Many studies use stereotyping criteria to define prejudice as well as prejudicial criteria to define stereotyping. An example of this is the Bäckström and Björklund (2007) study they state that classical prejudice is involves engaging in stereotypical beliefs about a particular group in a particularly negative way. They go on further to identify the differences between classical and modern prejudice, which leads to the question has prejudice evolved? Is it possible to develop affective measures to inhibit prejudice if it has evolutionary capabilities? Wegener, Clark and Petty (2006) state that not all stereotyping is created equally. The study emphasizes the lack of literature on thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping, the results show that thoughtful stereotyping leads to beliefs which are harder to extinguish as well as more difficult to detect. These findings challenge many theories and practices such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which seeks to challenge the thought process by applying logic and reason. They go further to state that increased thought might fail to decrease stereotypic behaviours, but also may manufacture stereotypic beliefs that have a longer lasting impact.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a concept that could be linked to the Rwandan Genocide. The theory posits that social dominance of a group allows for prejudice to emerge and be maintained. The theory also suggests that a general attitudinal belief may be formed within the socially dominant class and that they generally prefer and support political programs which clearly define as well as maintain social hierarchies. Whereas people from lower SDO groups prefer egalitarian societies (Bäckström and Björklund 2007).
Stereotyping and Prejudice leads to Agression.
Parrott and Zeichner (2005), state that stereotyping and prejudice can lead to aggression. Their study of sexual prejudice and anger against homosexuals showed that such prejudice could result in physical aggression given the right precursors and context. The study also reported that such aggression was on the rise with a 40 percent increase in violence against homosexuals in the U.S from 1998 to 1999 and a 13 percent rise in antigay murders, despite the nations general decrease in murder rate. It is evident that sexual prejudice can result in an increased capacity for physical aggression but it does not appear that this is the only prejudice that can lead to aggressive behaviours. Keesee et al (2007) report that race prejudice may play a role in promoting aggression. In the United States the Department of Justice reported that black suspects are approximately five times as likely as their white counter parts (per capita) to die at the hands of a police officer. The study showed that community members and police officers both displayed robust racial bias in regard to the speed of their decision. It also showed that although community members set the decision criterion lower for black people over white people the police did not.
The relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression can be explored through the use of a concept map (see Appendix A). This model shows the theoretical and conceptual constitution of each as well as their varying interactions. The concept map is based solidly around the theoretical premises currently held about the make-up, contributory factors and relationships between the three concepts. It is evident that all three factors strongly influence one another. The relationship explored between all three in the concept map illustrates how all three factors can impact on one another in somewhat of a cyclical fashion. For example an individual has developed a sexual prejudice towards homosexuals may interact with a homosexual or even heterosexual that meets the stereotypical criterion and this can often result in aggression, particularly in males. Alternatively a homosexual individual may hold a prejudice towards people that he considers sexually discriminative or homophobic due to previously witnessed aggressive behaviours towards his group.
Concept Mapping.
The concept map was generated using a software package known as: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) CmapTools.
Appendix A: Concept map of the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and Agression.
Appendix B: Self-assessment.
1. Theory – In researching and writing this blog I attempted to use the most recent information available and to provide information that supported as well as critiqued established theories. However I believe that a greater effort should have been made to better source information about the links of the three concepts to the Rwandan Genocide, and the blue-eye brown-eye experiments by Jane Elliot. With this in mind I did find it difficult to appropriately define all three concepts and their relationships without going over the word limit. The web log did aim to identify areas within social psychology that did not have sufficient research available and pose some questions and possible areas where further research might prove useful.
2. Research – The web log does provide a wide range of research that is relatively up to date with several sources being published this year. I feel that the web log uses the research appropriately and efficiently. More attention could have been addressed towards research on the concept of aggression, however it was difficult to source information that was appropriate to prejudice and stereotyping in a social context as opposed to a biological one. Furthermore time could have been spent on researching the affects of aggression stereotyping and aggression on the Rwandan as well as societal minorities over an extended period. Although nature and prevention of the three concepts were addressed as well as their cyclical nature which did cover the affects to a point.
3. Written Expression – MS Word provided readability statistics including a Flesch reading ease of 25.8. A Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 12.0 and 14% passive sentences. The Flesch reading ease increased to 26.1 after the exclusion of the reference list. The Blog uses sub-headings to break up the text and also provide a guide to what the following text is about. APA format was adhered to as much as possible. However due to the nature of the blog some formatting errors have occurred. The reference list whilst italicised correctly is does not adhere to APA format regarding the stepping in of the second and remaining lines of text. Also the use of sub-headings is not generally acceptable in essay format, but were used in order to make the blog more user-friendly. An abstract may have proved to be useful in improving the readability and understanding of the blog. The use of the concept map allows for easy understanding and was deliberately kept simple for this purpose. It serves as a guide to the essay and as a summary of sorts. Linking the image to a larger one hosted by an image hosting site keeps the blog tidy and efficient but also allows for easy viewing of the concept map.
4. Online Engagement – The use of video clips embedded within the first blog was designed to generate interest, although the incorporation of a poll or posing questions about the videos may have proved more inviting. This area can be greatly improved on in future blogs as my understanding of the blog process has increased. Better planning of engaging blogs for the second assessment is necessary.
References:
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural Modeling of Generalized Prejudice The Role of Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Empathy. Journal of Individual Differences. 28, (1), 10–17.
Devine, P.G. (2001). Implicit Prejudice and Stereotyping: How Automatic Are They? Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81, (5), 757-759.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., Tice, D.M., Brewer, L.E., & Schmeichel, B.J. (2007). Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, (2), 325–336.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does Social Dominance Generate Prejudice? Integrating Individual and Contextual Determinants of Intergroup Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84, (4), 697–721.
Keesee, T., Sadler, M. S., Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C.M., Park, B., & Correll, J. (2007). Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, (6), 1006–1023.
Khan, S.R., Chasteen, A.L., Shaffer, L.M., Jacoby, L.L., Payne, K.B., & Lambert, A.J. (2003). Stereotypes as Dominant Responses: On the “Social Facilitation” of Prejudice in Anticipated Public Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 84, (2), 277–295.
Parrott, D.J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of Sexual Prejudice and Anger on Physical Aggression Toward Gay and Heterosexual Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 6, (1), 3–17.
Ryan, M.K., & Buirski, P. (2001) Prejudice as a Function of Self-Organization. Psychoanalytic psychology 18, (1), 21-36.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Clark, J.K. (2006). Not All Stereotyping Is Created Equal: Differential Consequences of Thoughtful Versus Nonthoughtful Stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, (1), 42–59.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
First blog
Hey everyone,
This is my first blog for the social psychology assessment. I think i have left it a little late in the game but i have changed my mind about which topic to post on a number of times. I have finally decided upon Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. Possibly due to being inspired to do so after today's lecture. So my first thoughts are of course what exactly do the terms means, and more specifically what do they mean to your average Australian, average student (left myself open there) or to the people who are on the receiving end of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression that stems from these.
I have added two Videos from youtube, please take a look, especially at the first one (it goes for just under 10 minutes, but i think its well worth the time).
The second clip is also sourced from youtube and is someone trying to speak out against prejudice and stereotyping using a very modern medium, which i found interesting in itself.
About Being Considered "Retarded"
Racism on YouTube
Hope this works
~Michael
This is my first blog for the social psychology assessment. I think i have left it a little late in the game but i have changed my mind about which topic to post on a number of times. I have finally decided upon Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. Possibly due to being inspired to do so after today's lecture. So my first thoughts are of course what exactly do the terms means, and more specifically what do they mean to your average Australian, average student (left myself open there) or to the people who are on the receiving end of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression that stems from these.
I have added two Videos from youtube, please take a look, especially at the first one (it goes for just under 10 minutes, but i think its well worth the time).
The second clip is also sourced from youtube and is someone trying to speak out against prejudice and stereotyping using a very modern medium, which i found interesting in itself.
About Being Considered "Retarded"
Racism on YouTube
Hope this works
~Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)