text:
User:Mimosa Forsyth

= Week 1: Introduction to Social Psychology = What is Social Psychology?

 * Social Psychology is a branch of psychology that seeks a broad understanding of how human beings think act and feel within a group – Baumeister & Bushman.
 * Understanding human behaviour in a social context – James Neil.
 * How the thoughts feelings and behaviours of others are influenced by the actual imagined of implied presence of others – Allport.
 * Social psychology is the study of how people and groups interact – Wikipedia

My own thoughts on what social psychology is – a broad definition may be that social psychology is the study of individual behaviour within a group situation. Where as sociology is the study of society as a whole, and psychology studies the processes within the individual, social psychology studies the individuals within a society, how and why they act within, and are influenced by groups and society as a whole.

 * Social Psychology can help you make sense of your social world.

A few key terms and concepts that came up during the readings and the lecture:

 * Social Perception: How we interpret social objects
 * Social Influence: Attitudes and behaviours brought about by others
 * Social Interaction: How we interact with others in a social world
 * Person vs. Situation debate: is a person influenced primarily by their biology or the situation they are in?

The person/situation debate surrounds the issues of what influences behaviour? Is it the person or is it the situation? I currently sit somewhere in the middle in this debate, not because I am unable to decide, but because I have witnessed plenty of evidence for both sides, highlighting that the topic is neither black nor white, but rather some shade of grey.

I find myself asking many questions regarding this - Why a person might behave one way in one situation, yet another way in a different situation? How would a different person behave in the same situation? How would have they behaved across different cultural and time dimensions?

I am personally aware that my behaviour is often influenced or guided by the situation that I am in, for instances there are certain sets of acceptable behaviour that differs across settings (friends vs. grandparent or university vs. work), but is this because of my personality or that society and culture dictate how we must behave in various settings.

On the other hand I know other people who’s behaviour is relatively stable across all situations, whether it be around friends, family, colleagues, at work or at home. So this is evidence for both sides, and where does this leave us? What I am hoping to learn from this course is the ways in which different factors dictate or influence how individuals behave in society.

Culture and Nature (Ch 2)
Social psychology aims to answer the fundamental question surrounding how people think, feel, and act? When investigating this question many look into the important aspects of culture and nature.

Nature:

 * Genes, hormones, brain structures etc.
 * Turn to the evolutionary theory to explain behaviour. Looks at how change occurs in nature

 * Natural selection demonstrates that traits that increase one’s chances of survival or reproduction will endure, and those that reduce these chances will not.
 * Survival means living longer than others.

I take nature to mean everything that is essentially innate, where as culture could be conceived as everything that is gained from socialisation.

Culture:

 * What people learn from parents, society, and from past experience.
 * What people share, ranging from language, values, food styles, to styles of government.
 * Consists of shared ideas and meanings. Ideas are mental representations that can be expressed through language.

‘ Culture is an information based system, involving both shared understandings and praxis (practical way of doing things), that allows groups of people to live together in an organised fashion and to satisfy their biological and other needs.’ – Baumeister & Bushman

Human beings are often referred to as social and cultural animals. That is we seek connections to others, we prefer to live work and play with other people (social side). But whereas many other animals can be classified as social animals, humans are distinct in the fact that we are cultural animals in the way that we can take part in this culture.

Further information

 * Gustav, J. (1986). Nature, culture and social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 17-30

Tutorial 1 - Introductory tutorial
To be perfectly honest this was one of my last tutorials so I had already been through the usual get to know you exercises, and wasn’t to thrilled at the prospect of doing another. However, I was pleasantly surprised. For this get to know each other exercise we were required to form groups based on a certain characteristic (i.e. eye colour, number of siblings, where you were born etc). As we moved on it became slightly more challenging, as we were required to form groups based on beliefs (i.e. religious and political).

The thing I think I found most interesting about this tutorial was just how quickly and easily individuals create groups. Even though people may hardly know one another, we are all willingly to form groups on the basis of some characteristic or quality. It is as if this would guarantee that everyone had at least one thing in common. Another thing I found interesting was how easily you related to the people in your groups, and excluded those in another, because in some way or anther they were different.

What I know/what do I expect –

Well to be perfectly honest before this course I cant say that I know too much about social psychology. After doing a brief overview of social psychology in psychology 102 last year, I became very interested in social psychology as a field of study. And not knowing as much as I do now, I enrolled in a few sociology units thinking (very naively) that it would be somewhat similar to social psychology, and became quite disappointed as it wasn’t answering all the questions I had running through my head. So upon enrolling in social psychology this year I wasn’t too excited to say the least, however, so far I have been pleasantly surprised, and look forward to learning more and more throughout the semester.

What I want to know –

This is a bit of a difficult question to answer, as there is just so much about human beings I want to understand. What drives people to act the way they do? Why are human’s so eager to form groups, and readily exclude others from those groups? What makes people like and dislike other people? If I primary drive of humans is to form social connections, why do we exclude so many people from these connections? Why are humans so eager to follow the latest trends and fads, is it just to feel socially connected or is there something more? Why are some people happy being law-abiding citizens and others ‘driven’/ ‘attracted’ to crime?

Essay ideas –

Not quite sure about essay ideas, maybe something to do with crime rates in different cultures, or social influences on crime, or other factors affecting crime rates (i.e. temperature).

= Week 2 – Social Self = The human ‘self’ is a tool that we all use to help us cope with human society and satisfy our needs. The self is designed to help us relate to one another as well as helping us connect more intimately with others. Building and maintaining relationships is one of the primary needs of human beings. The purpose of the self is to gain social acceptance, as well as to play social roles.

We may underestimate the need to belong but in reality it is a fundamental human need - The idiot's guide to social acceptance

There are no firm or tight boundaries around the self; the self appears to be everything that we do both in the public and private areas of our lives.

The concept of the self could be looked at as a result of evolution or a product of society. Which has a greater influence, our brains, neurons, hormones, and other biological processes, or the requirements of the society we are living in? This does not appear to be such a clear-cut distinction, as both appear to play an importance and crucial role. It would be difficult to imagine a ‘self’ without either nature or culture.

It has been proposed that the self is made up of several parts, including

 * Self-knowledge (or self-concept): this is information we possess about the self.
 * Interpersonal self (or public self): as the name suggests this is the self that helps connect socially with others.
 * Agent-self (or executive functioning): this is the self as a doer; makes decisions, active responding, self-control etc.

Self-construal- is a way of thinking about the self (i.e. independent vs. interdependent self-construal), either seeing the self as separate and distinct from others, or a self that emphasizes connections with others.

Where self-knowledge comes from?
Some believe that people learn about themselves through everyday interactions with others, where individuals learn how others perceive them.

 * This is also known as the looking-glass self, and consists of three components;

 * 1) You imaging how you appear to others
 * 2) You imagine how other perceive you
 * 3) You develop an emotional response as a result of imaging how other may judge you.

This idea was then expanded to include the notion of feedback from others. Essentially other people tell us who we are? Although I find this notion a little hard to understand, because when you meet people for the first time, they may ask you to tell them a little about yourself, not let me tell you a little bit about yourself…

Other ways that we may learn about ourselves include -

 * Introspection: People have direct knowledge of what they are like; they only have to look inwards.
 * Social comparison: you learn not the facts about yourself, but what value they hold, by comparing themselves to others. This can make people either feel better about themselves (through downward social comparison) or worse about themselves (through upward social comparison)
 * Self-perception: We learn about ourselves in the same way that we learn about others, though observing behaviour and drawing conclusions (self-perception theory).
 * Phenomenal self or working self we are only aware of a small portion of information about ourselves at any point in time.

Why do we seek self-knowledge? We need self-knowledge as to enable us to fit in better with others. Although people learn about themselves there are some things they would rather know than others. There are 3 general motives that shape peoples quest for knowledge.

 * 1) The simple desire to learn knowledge about one’s self (appraisal motive)
 * 2) The desire to learn flattering things about the self (self-enhancement motive)
 * 3) The desire to confirm what one already believes about one’s self (consistency motive)

I’m sure we can all relate to times where people have asked our opinion on something about themselves (i.e. does my bum look big in this), and no matter what you tell them, if it is not consistent with what they possibly already think they wont believe you. I wonder if this is because the desire to find out the information is driven by the consistency motive, and maybe if information doesn’t align, it is not accepted? I guess this is where the question of telling people what they want to hear comes in?

Further Information
Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. (1981). Acquiring self-knowledge: The search for feedback that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1119-1128.

Ulrich, K., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context--independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397-409.

Self-esteem
Self-esteem could be referred to as how favorable a person evaluates himself or herself, or their global feelings of self-worth. Self-esteem is often based on the comparison of one’s self to others.

In western society it is usually accepted that it is better to have high self-esteem than low self-esteem. Possibly indicating that high self-esteem is ‘good for us’, and people who have high levels of self-esteem are happier and healthier. We are often told that if we all just had higher levels of self-esteem, our lives would be perfect (this is highlighted in a lot of ‘self-help’ books or programs). This, however, does not appear to be the case. For humans to be healthy functioning individuals it is best not to have overly high levels of self-esteem, but more a balance of positive self-esteem and realism. As people with low self-esteem are prone to depression, and individuals with overly high levels of self-esteem are considered narcissists (excessive self-love). Narcissism Rules Narcissism Lesson

The textbook also mentions the fact that it is not individuals with low self-esteem who have a distorted view of reality (which is what I always thought until now), but those with high self-esteem who distort reality. I finding this interesting that high self-esteem is related to a distorted view of reality.

Even though it would appear that there are no benefits to having high self-esteem besides a distortion of reality, it has been suggested that there are actually many benefits of high self-esteem -

 * Fosters confidence that you can do the right thing.
 * More willing to speak up in groups.
 * More likely to try again after failure.
 * More willing to do what they think is best.

Further information
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19-39.

Bogart, L. M., Benotsch, E. G., & Pavlovic, J. D. (2004). Feeling superior but threatened: The relation of narcissism and social comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 35-44

Riketta, M., & Dauenheimer,D. (2003). Manipulating self-esteem with subliminally presented words. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 679-700.

Hannover, B., Birkner, N., & Pohlmann, C. (2006). Ideal selves and self-esteem in people with independent or interdependent self-construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 119-133.

= Week 3 – Social Thinking =

Human beings exert a large amount of time and energy thinking about other people. This may because one of our primary needs as human beings is to be accepted and to participate in society. What this means for humans is being able to manage relationships and deal with other people.

Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory suggests how we explain someone's behaviour - by either crediting the situation or the person's disposition. When we think of the cause of our own bahaviour, we are likely to attribute the causes of our actions to the situation, whereas when we think of the causes of other people's behaviour we fall into the trap of the fundamental attribution error. This is the tendency for observers, when analyzing another's behaviour, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal dispositions.Although the fundamental attribution error can be witnessed in all cultures, it is suggested that it is especially strong in individualistic Western cultures. In everyday life we struggle to explain other people's actions. For instance a jury must decided whether an action was intentional or self-defense. In a job interview, the interview has to judge whether the applicant is genuine. When we make such judgments, our attributions, either to the person or the situation, have important consequences.

I think that a lot of road rage is the result of the fundamental attribution error. We interpret others bad driving to internal dispositions - such as that they must just be a bad driver.

Attitudes and Actions

Attitudes are feeling, often based on our beliefs, that predispose us to respond in a particular way to objects people and events. Attitudes can affect our actions, but also our actions can affect our attitudes. This can be seen in the foot-in-the-door phenomenon - the tendency for people who have first agree to a small request to comply later with a larger request. It has also been suggested that role playing may affect our attitudes. When you adopt a new role to strive to follow the social prescription. At first your behaviours may not feel natural because you are playing a role, however, before long what began as action becomes you. There is a saying that i think particularly suits this notion - 'fake it, until you make it'. When we act in ways that do not align with our attitudes we may experience cognitive tension, or cognitive dissonance, an to relieve this tension we have to being our actions inline with our attitudes.

Social cognition: Thoughts about people and social relationships.

Tutorial 2: How do we undertake effective interpersonal communication?
Levels (depth of communication)
 * Shallow – Factual information (time, date etc.)

 * Clichés/scripts (common greetings, e.g. hey how’re you? An act of feeling obliged to ask).

 * Opinions/ attitudes/ thoughts

 * Deep – Feelings/emotions/affect

 * Self-disclosure.

Channels (relative amount of importance we attribute to part of information)

For example in face-to-face contact we may place 50% on verbal cues and 50% on nonverbal cues (for example body language, facial expressions, tone of voice).

Whereas in other forms of communication (e-mail, phone, SMS), the weight we give to verbal and nonverbal cues may change. In e-mail you are highly reliant on written words as there is a lack on nonverbal cues (although we now have the use of emoticons). On the phone you may presume that this would be the same, but I have found that the focus drastically shifts from a focus on verbal cues, to nonverbal cues like the tone, and volume, of voice. You would find it hard to believe someone who is telling you that they are really happy and excited, while they sound sad and depressed. I don’t know if everyone places the same weight on different cues, but I know that I rely very heavily on nonverbal cues as opposed to verbal ones.

Body language that tells someone that you are engaged in the conversation: smiling, eye contact, and body front on. Where as things like crossed arms, wondering eyes, looking away, and changing orientation of your body are likely to inform someone that you are attempting to withdraw from the situation.

When then did an exercise on eye contact … I don’t know what to say; I thought that I was pretty good at keeping eye contact with people (I always use to win staring competitions), until today. We were required to stand close to another person (someone we didn’t really know) and maintain eye contact for between 30-60. That might not sound like a very long time, but this activity got more intense as the time went on, and it seemed to go forever. It was also noticeable that there is a certain distance for optimal eye contact, anything that it too close or far away was the hardest to maintain. The first thing that I wanted to do was to laugh, because it was getting pretty awkward. I was surprised at how weird it felt. It really made me wonder how much eye contact I actually make with other people. However, I think it would make a big difference holding eye contact with someone you know well (friend, family, or partner), than someone you don’t know at all, as there seems to be a certain level of intimacy involved. They always did say that eyes are the windows to the soul, and up until now I never believed just how powerful the eyes are.

Communication

The Shannon weaver model of communication- It embodies 6 concepts including; a source, an encoder, a message, a channel, a decoder, a receiver.
 * The emphasis here is very much on the transmission and reception of information

= Week 4 – Aggression (Ch9) + Ghosts of Rwanda =
 * Aggression is any behaviour that is intended to or motivated to harm another person. Aggression is not a thought but an action.

There are many different ‘types’ of aggression:

- Hostile aggression, which is, Impulsive (heat of the moment) behaviour intended to harm someone.

- Instrumental aggression, which could be thought of as the opposite of this hot impulsive behaviour, as instrumental aggression is premeditated, calculated behaviour. This could be something like spreading a rumor intended to ruin a person’s reputation.

- Verbal aggression: yelling, screaming etc.

- Physical aggression: hitting, kicking, physical fighting etc.

- Passive aggression, which could be described as the intentional harming of others through withholding behaviour (failing to tell someone that a person called regarding the job they applied for, and consequently the person does not get the job).

- Active aggression, this is harming someone by performing some behaviour.

Aggression is not only found in humans.

How do we develop aggression-?

 * Some people propose that aggression is not learned, but developed through the process of evolution as a means of survival – Lorenz
 * Others believe that aggression is learned like any other behaviour – Bandura

Like everything else I don’t think that it is as simple as explaining it through one view. Both learning and instincts may be relevant to explaining aggression. There has to be some innate aspect of aggression because it can be seen all over the world. Although I don’t think that it can purely be explained by instincts either. This may be another one of those situations where nature says go and culture say stop. As socialized beings we learn that in a lot of situations it is neither appropriate nor necessary to use aggression.

Inner Causes of Aggression-

Frustration/aggression hypotheses: the occurrence of aggression is presupposed by the existence of frustration, and the existence of frustration generally leads to the occurrence of aggression.

Relative deprivation theory: the sense of having less than one is entitled to, which leads to a feeling of frustration and then aggression.

Excitation transfer – arousal from one situation may carry over to another, and possibly lead to heightened aggression – Zimmerman. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why people become more aggressive when they drink alcohol? Is it because they are already in an aroused state because of the alcohol, and then they misinterpret another situation (someone accidently bumping into them), which leads to aggression?

Further Information
anger and aggression

Bjorkqvist, K., Legerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1991) Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.

Reflections on Ghosts of Rwanda
I’m not exactly sure where I’m supposed to start. This was quite possibly one of the most emotive films I have ever seen. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could watch this film and not find it thoroughly tragic and heartbreaking. One of the most tragic things was that this could be going on and all over the world people turned a blind eye. One could only hope that if such an event were to happen again the world would be more responsive. But I have a feeling that was what a lot of people would have been saying after the holocaust, yet look what happened only 50 odd years later. There were a few questions that were continually running through my head as I was watching the film, so I though I would just outline a few of them.

 * I cannot understand how people can be so cruel in their killings. Is it possible to kill people in they way they did without feeling any remorse or emotion what so ever?
 * How could situations get so bad as to lead one group to massacre another? What kinds of situations bread such hated for fellow human beings?
 * What is the point of the United Nations; if in times of conflict they cant intervene? I understand their not wanting to interfere with internal conflict, but when almost 1 million people were killed, is that really an option?
 * What could be the psychological mechanisms at work that possibly exaggerate the aggression? Could the drive-theory, or frustration-aggression hypothesis (the occurrence of aggressive behaviours presupposes the existence of frustration and the existence of frustration leads to some form of aggression) explain it? The Hutus were already frustrated by what the Tutsis use to do to them, and used this as propaganda when rounding up support.
 * Did the Weapons effect come in to play? Emotions were running high and weapons were readily visible and available.
 * Did the fact that they acted as a ‘group’ instead of individuals lead to more violence? As this may have served as a sense of anonymity and deindividuation, which would encourage more violence and more killing.
 * The next striking thing about the movie was how the world turned a blind eye and failed to respond. They were all too afraid to use the ‘g-word’, but whatever you want to call it, it should not matter, when 800,000 or so innocent people massacred.
 * Clinton never apologized for his lack of response (no friends, only interests).

Even though there was a lot of tragedy, there were some acts of kindness, and some people, who made me want to believe that good does actually exist.

The red cross were among the few who to decided to help.

 * What made some people have the courage to stay, putting their own lives at risk to potentially help people that they don’t even know?

 * Why were some people be prepared to stay behind by themselves and possibly save hundreds, when others just completely turned their backs.

 * It is amazing that some people could be so brave, putting others needs before their own, while so many others turned their back stating that there was nothing they could do. It helps balance humanity, if there were only people who killed and no one who was willing to reach out and lend a hand, what would this be saying about humanity?

Further Information
Smith, D. (1998) The psychocultural roots of genocide: Legitimacy and Crisis in Rwanda. American Psychologist,53, 743-753.

= Week 5 – Prejudice =

Prejudice and Intergroup relations (Baumeister & Bushmen Ch 12)
The KKK (Klu Klux Klan) is a right-wing fraternal organization in the United States that advocates white supremacy to the exclusion of other 'races'.

Prejudice is a negative attitude of feeling held towards another individual based solely on the individual (perceived) membership to a certain group. Prejudice like other attitudes is a mixture of beliefs (stereotypes) and emotions (such as, hostility, envy or fear), and the predisposition to action (discrimination). Where as prejudice is a negative attitude, discrimination is a negative behaviour.

Even though prejudice seems very irrational, it is something that occurs all the time, in areas of life. I see prejudice as arising partially from human’s desire to categorize everything. If we come across something we have not encountered before, we have no category to put this person or thing into, we may become confused and don’t know how to act towards it. Social categorization cannot only often be very ill informed, but also I see it as the root of most prejudice. We are all humans; most of us like to believe that although we may belong to some groups, they do not determine our fate. Even though we like to believe this about ourselves we often fall into the trap of the outgroup homogeneity bias – where we believe all members of the ‘other’ or outgroup are similar to one another, but we as the ingroup are not as similar to each other.

Where does prejudice come from?

As mentioned above prejudice can result from social categorisations that particularly emphasis the difference between groups. In that respect prejudice is a result of culture. We are taught that different is bad, and that other groups are different. There are many aspects of this view that I agree with, and some not so much. Much information that we know about other groups or stereotypes are learned through socialization, they are not something innate. However I also believe that humans are designed to form categories and stereotypes, but it is the content of these stereotypes or the emotions felt towards other groups that is learned through society.

Social Roots of Prejudice
Prejudice also arises through inequalities, social divisions, and emotional scapegoating. Prejudice rationalizes inequalities. Us Vs. Them - thanks to our need to belong we are a group-bound species. We define who we are in part through our groups. We associate ourselves with certain groups and contrast ourselves with others. This not only tell us who you are, but also who you are not. The desire to distinguish ourselves from others predisposes us to prejudice against strangers. Prejudice stems not only from the division of society but also from emotions such as anger and fear. When something goes wrong, we want to find someone whom we can blame. Like the worlds outlast at many innocent Arabs, following the 9/11 attacks.

Common targets of prejudice

 * Arabs- Prejudice and discrimination increased in U.S after September 11 2001.

People who are overweight- another highly visible characteristic of individuals subject to prejudicial attitudes is obesity. Unlike racist and sexist attitudes, many people will openly admit and even act upon their negative attitudes towards obese people.

 * Stigma by association- rejection of those who associate with stigmatized others.

ones race or gender or weight, anti-gay prejudices are often quite strong, leading sometimes to violence and discrimination.
 * Homosexuals- Although one’s sexual orientation is not as readily visible as
 * Homophobia: excessive fear of homosexuals or homosexual behaviour. Both men and women are intolerant of homosexuals in their own gender. Perhaps this is because of a fear of being the target of a sexual advance from homosexuals. May fear a positive response to homosexual advances.
 * Other potential targets of prejudice include elderly, jews, and people with stigmas.
 * Stigmas: characteristics of individuals that are considered socially unacceptable (e.g. being overweight, mentally ill, sick, poor, or physically scarred).

Tutorial 3 – Prejudice – ‘The Australian Eye’ (Jane Elliot)
Building on from the lecture on Prejudice, we watch the video ‘The Australian Eye’ By Jane Elliot. This video was about an experiment conducted by Jane Elliot. Although there were many interesting things about this experiment, and many individuals appeared to learn a lot, I disagreed with the ethics of this experiment and the way it was conducted.

Jane Elliot played (I presume she was acting) the role of an authority figure, and she made her ‘power’ known early on. The purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate the power of prejudice (the negative feeling towards an individual based solely on their membership to a particular group). This was not done through promoting acceptance and cohesion, but through demonstrating what it is like to be treated differently on the basis of a characteristic that you have no control over. I personally didn’t agree with the way that she went about doing this. I think there are other ways to promote acceptance and demonstrate the destructive nature of prejudice, other than giving one group (the people with brown eyes- the majority of which in this case were of Aboriginal descent) power to discriminate (the unequal treatment of different people based on the groups to which they belong) against another group (the people with blue eyes – the majority of which were of European decent).

I think one thing that was really demonstrated, was the power of an authority figure to demand obedience. Even though you got the feeling that not everyone agreed with what was happening, they did not want to be seen as going against the group, and thus did not say anything. As far as I am aware the majority of these people didn’t know one another before this experiment. If this is the case it supported the minimal group effect – that is that people show favoritism towards ingroup members even when the groups are randomly determined. However, the minimal group effect may not be so relevant as; these groups weren’t so arbitrary for the reason that, they had all in one-way or another experienced discrimination from a member or members of the other group (not necessarily the individuals who made up the group in the experiment, but in a larger sense to incorporate all White Australians).

One thing that was really striking to me about this experiment was the fact that Jane Elliot presumed that all the Blue eyed members had had things fairly easily and had not experienced discrimination like the brown-eyed members had. This reflects the wrong assumption of the outgroup homogeneity bias – this is the assumption that outgroup members are more similar to one another than ingroup members are to one another.

Another issue with this experiment was that as much as it could be discouraging prejudice it could be encouraging it. This exercise focused on the negative aspects of the group that confirmed what the other group already believed about the Blue-eye group. As humans we tend to accept information that aligns with our beliefs and disagree with information that doesn’t. The more negative information that is highlighted about a particular group the harder it will be to eliminate these beliefs. When such deep prejudicial beliefs are held, that are continually confirmed, the more strained intergroup relations will be.

Key terms and their applications –
During this tutorial we also discussed various terms relating to prejudice, aggression and prosocial behaviour. I discuss a few that I found particularly interesting-

 * Discontinuity effect: this is where groups are more extreme in their views and actions, than individuals. I have often found myself in a group situation or an observer of a group situation, and wonder if the people would act the same if they were not surrounded by a group of people. I think this may play role on group violence, if you imaging two groups ‘going to war’, would their actions be the same if it was just two individuals involved instead of groups?

 * Outgroup homogeneity bias: (as outlined above) can be witnessed in such statements as, ‘they’re all the same’ ‘if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all’. I just question if individuals treated others as individuals whether prejudice would be reduced.

 * Subtypes: when we make up a category for individuals who do not fit into our general stereotypes. Instead of re-evaluating the validity of our initial stereotype we just place people in separate categories within that stereotype. We continue doing this until the original stereotype we held virtually holds no meaning, as there are so many subtypes.

Two terms that I think help to understand the aggression in Rwanda.

 * Deindividuation: a sense of anonymity, when acting in a large group, that makes people more likely to engage in aggression. When people act in groups they are no longer an individual that is accountable for their actions, but a member of a group that can’t be identified. Would the aggression that occurred in Rwanda been as severe if everyone knew that they were accountable for their actions? I think not, anyone is free to comment…

 * Weapons effect: the increase in aggression as a result of the mere presence of a weapon. I think this is especially likely to occur when people are already acting aggressively, but may increase the intensity of that aggression. In Rwanda the Hutus were already frustrated, angry and hostile, once the killings started and weapons were readily available, the violence escalated (I know this is a generalization).

Can someone turn around his or her prejudiced views?
Around the time that we were studying prejudice I watched a program that demonstrated that prejudice can be reduce, and I thought I would share my thoughts on it here.

This program was about White supremacist. He believed that the White race was going to become extinct if we didn’t do anything to get rid of these ‘other people’. If you think to the absolute extreme Deep South white supremacist and times that by 10 that was this guy. Now the amazing thing wasn’t that he held such beliefs (although I really cant understand it), but how he dramatically turned his beliefs around. His ‘break-though’ moment didn’t come when his sons first words were ‘White is good’ or ‘nigger’ or when he was imprisoned for bashing a couple who he believe were Jewish (even though they weren’t), but when he was at the supermarket and his 3 year old son turned around and said ‘look daddy it’s a big Black nigger’. This man was able to turn his beliefs around from such extreme hatred and prejudice to acceptance and compassion. As horrible as it is to witness such hated, it is something that surrounds our everyday existence, it is encouraging to hear a story like his.

= Week 10 - Attraction, Exclusion and Close Relationships=

The Need to belong
Based on evolution, humans belonged to groups in order to ensure survival. Being a member of a group allowed members to distribute the workload and increase safety. More recently, however, most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups.

Why do we form and maintain relationships (even bad ones)? Humans have many ‘needs’ and the need to belong is simply one of them.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs proposed that, needs vary significantly in terms of their importance. Some needs must be met before other needs can be addressed. Lower- level needs such as physiological or safety needs must be met before our belonging and love needs can be addressed. We all need to feel that we are needed and accepted by others. As social beings, humans need to feel as though we are rooted in communities, with ties to family and friends. It is this need for belonging that motivates us to develop relationships.

This need to belong is so powerful that it can lead people to behave in ways that would otherwise seem bizarre. An example of this is the prisoners at San Quentin who were sentenced to solitary confinement resorted to taking into toilets to have some connection with other humans. However, for most people their need to belong can be satisfied by simpler means, such as acceptance by family and friends. The need to belong is not simply satisfied by human contact, there also has to be an aspect of stability and mutual concern for one another. Having one of these factors without the other will only produce partial satisfaction. I think the clearest example of this is when you start university, although people may surround you, until you form new friendships, you may feel partially isolated. Once we have formed a few close relationships, this need to belong may be satisfied and we don’t feel the need to continuously seek new relationships. Some people may desire more close friends than other, but I think in general most people would prefer 2 to 5 close friendships than a dozen acquaintances, this comes back to the fact that to fulfil your need to belong there has to be some aspect of mutual concern. So in essence humans form relationships, whether they are friendships or intimate relationships to fulfil this need to belong.

Attraction
What causes two people to be attracted to each other, either as friends or as romantic partners? When two people meet they may come to like each other, or they may not, what factors influence this? I general I think that we seek out friends and partners who are similar to ourselves in some way, either in interest, desires, goals, hobbies etc. But apparently it is not only these factors that guide who we seek out, the matching hypothesis states that people tend to pair up with other who are equally attractive. I find this fascinating. This could be rooted in the idea that men seek partner that are like their mothers and women seek partners that are like their fathers, I’m not sure how much I agree with this idea, but it could explain why people seek out partners who are equally attractive.

It is not that surprising that people like people who are similar to themselves, but one thing that I did find surprising was that people also come to like people based on familiarity mere exposure effect. I can see that this is targeted in marketing. Often using the idea that the more that you see something, the more you come to like it, and when faced with a range of options you will choose the one that is most familiar to you. So I guess in a way it could also work on people. But I disagree that just through exposure you will come to like someone; I think that factors such as lack of similarity or a bad experience with someone could potentially undermine the notion of mere exposure.

Rejection
I think we can all relate to the fact that at one point in our lives we have been rejected. I think this really highlights one of the key themes of this textbook, that bad is stronger than good. When someone is rejected it can take a lot longer for that person to come to feel accepted again. I don’t agree with Freud on the notion that humans are innately evil, but I do think that rejection and exclusions are two instances that show the ugly side of humanity. We are so eager to reject people sometimes for no reason other than that of what a person is wearing, without considering what the possible disastrous effects may be on the other person (including rejection sensitivity). I could go on indefinitely about the long-term effects of rejection on individuals, but I find it a little depressing, so I think I will move on to something a little more positive, love...

There is no such thing as a person who doesn't want any friends

Love

Love no one really knows what it is, or how to get it, but it is something that it so desperately sought after in our society. Those three words, ‘I Love You’, are used in a variety of situations, and very rarely mean the same thing to everyone. I find love an intriguing and fascinating topic, yet when it came time to write about it I was lost with what to say. So I turned to my good friend Wikipedia, which told me that ‘love’ relates to any number of emotions relating to strong affection. Then I started thinking about it, are strong emotions of affection the key? People say that they love a food, or a sport, but do these kinds of love really consist of strong feelings of affection. May be it would be more accurate to say I like pears or I like tennis? However, this still does not satisfy my curiosity. I love my parents, and that definitely relates to strong feelings of affection, but it does not mean the same thing as when I say I love my partner. The range of situations in which love it used, combined with the intricacy of the feelings involved, makes love not only intriguing, but also difficult to define.

Romantic Love - Hatfield distinguishes two types of love: temporary passionate love and enduring companionate love.

Passionate love is an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the beginning of a love relationship. The theory assumes that emotions have two ingredients, physical arousal and cognitive appraisal, and that arousal from any source can enhance one emotion or another, depending on how we interpret and label that emotion.

If the inevitable odds against eternal passionate love in a relationship were better understood, more people might choose to be satisfied with the quieter feeling of satisfaction and contentment (Myer, 2007).

As love matures it becomes a steadier companionate love - a deep, affection attachment we feel for those with whom are lives are intertwined. One key to an enduring relationship is equity: receiving in proportion to what to put in. Mutually sharing the self and possessions, giving and getting emotional support, promoting and caring about each other's welfare, are the core to every type of loving relationship. Another important ingredient is self-disclosure (revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others, our likes and dislikes, our dreams and worries, our proud and shameful moments). As one person reveals a little, the other reciprocates, the first then reveals more, and so on, as friends or lovers move to deeper intimacy.

Culture Shock
Culture shock refers to the feelings of anxiety that people experience when they find themselves in an unknown culture. This is definitely something that I can relate to first hand, from my travels through South East Asia. I remember my first trip to Asia, I arrived in the Bangkok airport, I walked outside, and my immediate thoughts was what the hell am I doing here? (it was hot and humid, and on top of that it was smelly and covered in smog). Coming from a reasonably relaxed country, to a city that is crazy, I immediately felt like a fish out of water. However, my regret for being there did not last very long. Immediately I was fascinated by the culture and hospitality of the people who took us into their homes, and shared with us their culture, and again unfortunately this honeymoon phase did not last either. I soon became aware of the enormous child sex trade industry, with children as young as 9 or 10 being sold so their family can afford to eat. The contrast from where I came from and where I was, had never been so apparent, and unlike the first two phases this one stuck with me for much longer, as I did not have time to enter the adjustment phase.

When I returned to Asia a year later all that had happened the previous time was forgotten, and I started back at the honeymoon phase. However, this time I was pushed further out of my comfort zone, and although there was still the initial honeymoon period, this again soon ended. During this visit I saw things that I never believed possibly (both amazing and utterly tragic). But fortunately this time I believe I was about to come to terms with the differences between cultures,and move into the adjustment phase. I was able to accept a certain way of doing things, even if it was not what I was accustomed to.

Information/References
Hendrick,C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of personality and Social Psychology. 50, 392-402.

Myer, D. (2007). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

White, G. L., Fishbeinm S., & Rutsein, J. (1981). Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 56-62.

= Week 11 Groups =

Why do we form group?

We are members of many groups.

From the evolution point of view we formed groups as to provide protection from wild animals, and even though we may not need protection from animals humans still have the tendency to form and maintain groups. Why do we form groups? A group is a collection of at least two people who are doing or being something together – Baumeister & Bushman. Although mostly agree with this definition, I find it hard to think of a group of only two people, i just have an idea in my head that a group must be more than 2. So i guess i will compromise, and accept that a group may consist of 3 or more people. People form groups for many different reasons, one of which may be to fulfil our need to belong. However, I think this may be a little to simple, if forming groups was purely to belong, then why do we naturally classify other people into groups? I think that the formation of groups stems form our tendency to being cognitive misers, or our tendency to classify objects in order to make sense of our world. The Self-Categorization Theory assumes that individuals divide and understand the social world through self-categorisations. Individuals see themselves as similar to some, and distinct from others and this is the basis on which groups are formed (Turner et al., 1987). According to the Social Identity Theory, humans form and maintain groups in order to achieve a sense of social identity. The Social Identity Theory suggests that when individuals perceive themselves as sharing a common group membership they become highly identified with that group and become more connected with the welfare of the group. Individuals join groups that they perceive as similar (ingroup) and distinguish from those who are seen as different (outgroup) (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). These group members seek to find positive ingroup distinctiveness, differentiating their group from other groups. This distinction leads to not only ingroup favouritism; the individual treats their group more favourably than other groups, but also deindividuation; the loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability in a group. The more an individual identifies with his or her own group, the greater this distinction, and the more the individual’s identity depends on the welfare of the group. Although groups generally serve a positive role in society, these processes of ingroup favouritism, and deindividuation can produce terrible results.

Group Action
Groups can have both positive and negative effects on individuals. Social facilitation demonstrates how the presence of others can increase one’s performance on a well-learnt task. The key here is that the person has to already be confident in performing the task, otherwise the presence of others can decrease performance. In some situations, our attention is divided between the task at hand and the presence of others (distraction-conflict theory).

We put in less effort hoping that other people will pick up the 'slack'

On the flip side of social facilitation, are negative effect of groups is social-loafing, this is when people reduce their individual effort when working in a group. This is one of the reasons why I am no to keen on group assignments. When working as part of a group, generally everyone receives the same mark no matter what their individual input was, when individuals are not identifiable for their work they may put in less effort. When individuals being to suspect that others are putting in less effort, they also put in less effort (this is know as the bad apple effect). The effects of social-loafing can be detrimental when you are trying to achieve something, however, though making individual efforts identifiable, and increasing the group cohesiveness it may be possible to reduce the effects of social-loafing.

How Groups Think?
When individuals come together as a group, the pooling of information can have great benefits for our society, but at times groups can be incredibly stupid. We are often encouraged to brainstorm when we are working in groups, thinking that it will produce a higher standard of ideas. However, it has been demonstrated that not only it the quantity of work in group lower, but the quality of this work was also lower as well. In order to perform effectively as a group, individuals must work separately before pooling information, and in these situations pooled group judgments may be better than single judgments.

Groupthink is the tendency for group members to think alike. When groups are working together they run the risk of conforming to the group, and not considering alternative plans of action. Groupthink is most likely to occur when the group is cohesive, there is a strong leader, groups are isolated from others, and the group perceives itself as superior to others. Even though individual members may have differing ideas or opinions, because of the pressure to conform to, and be accepted by, the group, they don’t express their ideas, enhancing the chances that groupthink will influence their decisions.

Tutorial 5 - Australia Zeitgeist
Social capital is a loosely defined concept; I take it to mean both the quality of human connection as well as community involvement. One concept that can be reflected in social capital is global warming, how much are people willing to put in to achieve a common goal?

Social Disengagement: I take this to be the opposite of social capital; it is isolation from society, exclusion and disconnection. The question can be asked, what is happening to society, when people are disengaging rather than engaging?

Zeitgeist: is used to describe ‘the spirit of the age and its society’, it is used to describe the intellectual, cultural, ethical, and political climate of an era.

In the tutorials this week we also listened to a talk by Hugh Mackay. Hugh Mackay talked about how we are going through a time of social change, this was demonstrated through noting some startling statistics: •	Around 45% of marriages end in divorce, compared to less than 10% 25 years ago. •	500,000 children regularly move from the home of the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent. •	30 years ago 75% of people were married by the age of 30, now less than 30% will be married by the age of 30. •	More than 50% of household contain one or two people.

Mackay talked about how these factors are leading to disengaging from the social scene. I think that this disengagement can also be witnessed in the marked increase in media use. The ipod, and mobile phones are prime examples of factors that contribute to social disengagement.Instead of connecting with our social world, we are caught up with what's going on with ourselves. But as I am aware that most of you all listened to this talk as well, I’m going to refrain from discussing it any more. What I do want to discuss, is what I see as the Australian Zeitgeist, and the Zeitgeist of the times in general.

Zeitgeist is used to describe the spirit or flavour of the times. I think that Australian and the world in general are going through a time of dramatic change. One only has to look at the American election to see such a change, when else is in American history would you see an African-American and a woman contending leadership, and later running for president. And although all have not welcomed him, I definitely think it is a huge step towards equality. Maybe ours is a time of transition.

Information/References
Watson, G.B. (1928). Do groups think more effectively than individuals? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,23, 328-336.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups. (pp. 61-77). London: 	Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization 	and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 	149-178.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (2004) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. J. 	Hatch & M. Schults (Eds.) Organizational Identity. (pp. 56-66). London: Oxford University Press.

Turner, J. C., Hoggs, M. A., Oaks, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: 	Basil Blackwell Ltd.

= Week 12 Prosocial Behaviour = Prosocial behaviour is doing something that is good for other people or for society as a whole. It can be seen in voluntary acts that are intended to benefit others. One purpose of prosocial behaviour is to be accepted. At times prosocial behaviour can come at a cost to the individual, so why do we engage in this behaviour, as mentioned above one reason is to gain acceptance and social status, others could include; self-interest, guilt, altruism, convenience etc. When we engage in certain prosocial behaviour we have an expectation that our good deeds will be both reciprocated and fair. Reciprocation can be both direct and indirect; we may help someone with the anticipation that they can help us later, or we may help someone and later when we need help someone else may help us (this can be seen in the notion of karma – what goes around comes around). We also act on the notion of fairness. One thing that intrigued me about fairness was the fact that individual’s feel guilty for having lived when others may have died (such as in a natural disaster) – also known as survivor guilt.

Why do people help?
Humans are unique in the way that they help strangers. According to the evolution we help people who have our genes (Kin selection). Yet this does not explain why we help people we do not know. Auguste Compte described two types of helping based on different motives; Egotistic helping, and altruistic helping. In egotistic helping the helper looks for something in return for their helping. In contrast in altruistic helping the helper seeks to help another without expecting anything in return, and is motivated by empathy.

Does altruistic behaviour truly exist?
Although people assume that altruistic helping exists, it might not. Baumeister and Bushman

Oskar Shindler's factory where he saved 1200 Jews from concentration camps

Altruism is the idea of a selfless act of providing aid to others than has no benefits for oneself, this often occurs at the expense to one’s self. As humans are selfish in nature there is considerable question as to whether altruism actually exists.

The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that empathy motivates people to reduce other people’s distress, such as by helping or comforting them. When empathy is low, people can reduce their own stress either by helping the person in need or by escaping the situation so they don’t have to see the person suffer any longer. If empathy is high, however, then simply shutting your eyes or leaving the situation wont work because the other person is still suffering, in that case the only solution is to help the victim feel better. We decrease our distress by decreasing others distress. What I understood altruism to be was helping others with NO benefit to us. This hypothesis states that we help others to reduce our own discomfort, so can altruism truly exist if we are motivated to help others for personal gain (even if it is just to stop us from feeling bad)? Even in the smallest act that could be classified as altruistic, we gain some benefit, for someone just to say ‘thank you’ isn’t that a benefit in itself if it makes us feel good. The Negative State Relief Theory is no better at explaining altruistic behaviour, as it states that we are motivated to help others to relieve our own distress.

However such acts as that of Carl Wilkins in Rwanda that make you believe that altruism might just exist. Even after every other American had left Kigali, he alone stayed and contested the 800,000-person genocide. Despite death threats he stayed, saving lives time and time again. Such selfless goodness exemplifies altruism.

Information
Altruism, Myth or Reality?

Bystander Helping
There have been many situations in which bystanders can help, and yet more often than not they don’t. Darley and Latane attributed this to an important situational factor, the presence of others. After staging emergencies under various conditions Darley and Latane came up with a decision making process for bystander intervention.

We will help only if the situation first enables us to first notice in incident, then interpret it as an emergency, and then finally assume responsibility for helping. At each step the presence of others turns people away from the path that leads to helping. When strangers are in a group on the street, they are more likely than individuals to focus on what they themselves are doing, and where they are going. If they notice an unusual situation, they may infer from other people's reactions that it is not an emergency, i.e. that person must be lying in that doorway because they are drunk. But in other situations, when the emergency is not ambiguous people still fail to help. They may notice the event, perceive it as an emergency yet fail to take any responsibility (this is also know as diffusion of responsibility, where we think that others will take responsibility).

The bystander effect is the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present. It has been suggested that helping decreases by 50% when we are in the presence of others. The best odds of our helping someone occur when:
 * The victim appears to need and deserve help.
 * The victim is in some way similar to us
 * We have just observed someone else being helpful
 * We are not in a hurry
 * We are in a small town, or rural areas
 * We are feeling guilty
 * We are focused on others and not preoccupied.
 * We are in a good mood.

It has been suggested that happy people are helpful people. No matter why people feel good, they become more generous and more eager to help.

Bystander Calculus Model- has also been proposed to explain why bystanders help in some situations and not others.

Bystanders calculate the (perceived) costs and benefits of providing help. 3 stages
 * 1) 	Physiological arousal: witnessing an emergency – physiological arousal – greater chance of helping.
 * 2) 	Labelling the arousal: is arousal labelled as a personal distress or empathetic concern? – usually labelled as personal distress.
 * 3) 	Evaluating the consequences: weigh up costs of helping, choose the action that reduces personal distress to the lowest cost.
 * Costs of helping: Time and effort – less likely to help if it involves greater time and effort
 * Costs of not helping: empathy costs (bystander experiences distress)
 * Personal costs (bystander experiences blame or guilt).
 * The greater the similarity to the victim the more likely the bystander is to help.

What are you going to do next time you see someone who may need help?

Information
Why people ignore people in need.

News: What Would You do in a Hit and Run?

Act Now and Defy the Bystander Effect

= Week 14 Environmental Psychology =

Environmental psychology studies the interactions and relations between humans and their environments. Environmental psychology looks at this in two ways; how the physical environment affects human thought, feelings, and behaviours as well as how human actions affect the environment. Ecological issues of people’s relationship to their environment, both natural and human-made, have assumed crucial importance to our quality of life, and even to the survival of humanity.

The environment can have both positive and negative impact on human. Crowing refers to the negative subjective feeling that there are too many people in a particular space, whereas density refers to the number of people in a given space. One example of this could be getting in to an elevator with 12 other people, although this may not be referred to as densely populated, people may have the negative experience that there are too many people in there.

Humans are having a deadly affect on the environment

One thing that really stood out at me in this weeks reading, was the trend in environmental concern. This reading was out of what I presume was an American textbook, it stated that in 1990 71% of Americans were concerned that there was not enough being done about the environment. All I have to say to that is WHAT (any of you who have been to the US may understand)? Okay let me explain, the US is the land of big, they want it big and they want it no matter what the cost to the environment (SUVs are a prime example of this mentality). I have never seen as much packaging and waste than I did in the US. The US has the most per capita waste. However, we shouldn’t feel so good just yet, Australia is number 2. This is not to say that all states in the US are totally inactive, some states (such as California and Vermont) have made progress towards becoming environmentally friendly.But i don't think they contain the entire 70%. It just got me thinking about how attitudes really aren't a very good predictor of behaviour.

Information

 * Oil, Pollution and the Kyoto Protocol
 * Climate Change and Global Warming

= Wrap up = Wow, is it really that time of the year again? Boy how time flies when your having "fun". Well what can i say i got out of this course? I think it has really encouraged me to look at the things i do and think and possibly re-ass them. One example would be the fundamental attribution error, i know that i can fall in to its trap more often than not. In general i think the course has taught me a great deal, not only about social psychology but also about myself. I think that the e-portfolio gave us a chance to really understand, and reflect on, the course material. What feedback would i have for this course? In general i think that this course was great, the only thing i would comment on is the timing of the assessments, i would recommend that possibly the essay should be due a bit earlier (possibly wk 12 or so). I just think it is a little rough having all our assessment for the one unit within a space of 12 days. Okay so i'm signing off hopefully for the last time, not more battles with wikiversity!!! Take care, and happy marking James.

title: User:Mimosa Forsyth


text:
User talk:Mimosa Forsyth

Well done
Good job on setting up your account,. Let me know if I can do anything as you go along. 'Official' Wikiversity welcome below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Mimosa Forsyth, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 09:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello , we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

Subpage for Week 10
Hi Mimosa, Your eportfolio is really flourishing. Just noted that you have a subpage User:Mimosa Forsyth/Week 10 - Attraction, Exclusion and Close Relationships (which is fine), but you may want to reconcile it with section on your main page: User:Mimosa Forsyth. If you don't want the subpage, then you can remove the content. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some quick feedback
Hi Mimosa, Based on a quick look through, this eportfolio looks very much on the "right" track and is clearly demonstrating your thoughtful engagement in the various components of the unit, and is using a variety of examples to demonstrate your understanding (I particularly love the "self-esteem shop" image). So, please feel encouraged to keep on with the approach you are taking. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-links
FYI, I added a couple of wiki-links: see changes. This is optional, but you may find doing something like this useful for some topics. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks
If you want to link to wikipdia, make this (  alternatif text  ) intead of a web link as this. Thanks. Crochet.david 10:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Mimosa Forsyth


text:
User:Nicbroto

Nic's Social Psychology E-Portfolio 2008
What’s happening people? I would like to welcome you to my Wikiversity page. My name is Nicholas Brotohusodo and I am a 22 year old University of Canberra student completing my final semester of a Bachelor of Science (Psychology) degree. This page will be used to my record my progress as I travel along the journey that is the unit of Social Psychology (SP). All information will be separated by topic. With that being said, please feel free to delve deep into my thoughts, feelings and opinions as I enter the endearing realm of SP.

Topic 1 - Introduction to SP
So I have to say after attending the first SP lecture, I was excited by how interesting SP sounded – I was eager to learn. It seemed that SP was a unit which wasn’t as monotonous as certain stats units, but instead a subject that encompasses a broad array of issues from cultural customs to the relationships we maintain. According to the lecture, SP can be referred to as human behaviour in context. That is, thoughts, feelings and behaviours of people can be influenced: by the actual imagined or implied presence of others (Allport, 1935), and by a joint function of personal and situation influences (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). SP emerged between the 50s and 60s, and is an integral component of many other areas of psychology from biological to clinical. Whilst the lecture covered many areas, my most striking realisation probably arrived sometime during the first tutorial.

The first tutorial was very much an introductory one, as it was very informative and comprised of several interesting activities. Firstly, our lecturer/tutor James Neill (JN) gave us an overview of the assessment criteria for this unit. The assessments for SP are in a format which is completely foreign to me but I’m sure I’ll manage. I’m definitely not the only one floating in this boat. I particularly enjoyed the icebreaker exercise that involved arranging ourselves into the certain groups which we belong to. Examples of groups were eye colour, geographic location, and religious beliefs. This exercise gave me the chance to learn more about my fellow classmates. It also pushed me to think about the groups that I am a member of, and how they act to define me as an individual. This moment of reflection was pivotal in that it made me realise how broad SP really is, how SP encompasses a domain far beyond the boundaries of my naïve mind, and how I have so much to learn. I think I’m getting excited about the challenges I will face in this unit.

This notion was reinforced by the group activity which was held towards the end of the tutorial. It involved discussing in groups these four points: our definition of SP, what we know about SP, what we don’t know about SP, and potential essay topics. I can’t actually remember what our answers were, although I do recall referencing ‘Tabula Rasa’. I guess what this exercise, as well as the group discussion which followed, confirmed was that there is a lot that I do not know. In concluding my first week of the final semester of my degree, I have to say I was pleasantly suprised.

I have yet to really think about potential essay topics.

Topic 2 - Social Self
Before this week started, I posed myself with the question, how do I define myself in a social context? Well I’m not even sure if I can answer that now but if I did attempt to describe myself with an adjective which I know won’t suffice, I am sure that it would illustrate a painting which explains that I am a social creature commonly known as a human being. I thought to myself, the “self” surely doesn’t come from nothing. It has to somewhat be linked to variables such as environment, culture and the people you interact with. These experiences are what build character. I suppose one could argue that they’re all in the same category but it doesn’t really matter. Without them we would not be who we think we are. I was convinced that these variables are what set the foundation for one’s development of the “self”. These social variables are not things which we can necessarily control. It made me think about how much of myself is really myself?

The lecture this week provided me with insight into the “social self” and shed much light on my previous curiosities. It appears that there are many different theories about the purpose and function of the “self”. In studying psychology, I’ve maintained a somewhat eclectic view on most issues so I’ve always made an effort to absorb the various theories on display. Psychologically, the “self” is defined as a collection of cognitively-held beliefs that a person possesses about themselves. However “self” seems to extend beyond the body, to include psychologically meaningful, personal possessions and personal space. I took a particular liking to the quote in the lecture notes which describes the “self” as “an important tool with which the human organism makes its way through human society and thereby manages to satisfy its needs.

In recent times, the “self” has been further extended and increasingly viewed as: dynamic and changeable, multiple/plural, hierarchical, situationally and cognitively influenced, and culturally constructed. The psychological self includes things such as: attitudes, emotions, cognitions, group memberships, self-beliefs, self-concepts, social roles, and possessions. So it seems that humans are gregarious, group-based creatures, and a significant portion of our “self” and its “behaviour” is socially directed and influenced.

In line with my questions mentioned previously, some depict “self” as a construct of post-industrial, capitalist society and political systems which promote self-identity and choice-making, and then markets to the “self”. Relative to my curiousities, I found myself drawn to the areas which helped in finding answers. Self-constructs illustrate how psychologists study people’s selves, in cognitive, affective, and behavioral terms. Self-constructs comprise of elements such as:

Self-esteem: global feelings of self-worth; value placed in and degree of liking of self.

Self-concept: cognitive representations of the self.

Self-efficacy: belief in one’s capacity to succeed at a given task.

Self-awareness: attention directed at the self; usually involves evaluative comparison.

I guess I still haven’t found all the answers to my questions, but this week helped me move one step closer to truly understanding myself. Yeah that’s right, I said it.

Topic 3 - Social Thinking
This is an interesting clip my friend Thomas found on youtube. It deals with social perception, and how your appearance affects what people think of you: social perception. Social perception refers to how people: form impressions of, and make inferences about other people. A nice little quote courtesy of William James explains “whilst part of what we perceive comes through our sense from the object before us, another part (and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our own mind.” Simply beautiful.

Topic 4 - Aggression
Aggression is intriguing to me. It’s evident in a lot of the things that interest me from the most violent video game or movie to just plain wanting to watch two random men beat the crap out of each other. In this sense, I feel like aggression is an integral component of my being. I don’t know if it is just a guy thing but I personally just enjoy watching graphic depictions of rage and violence, particularly in movies and video games. I live life on the edge. If you don’t believe me, ask around. Haha...

Maybe watching an extremely violent movie functions as an outlet of some sort for me. Who knows? It’s another thing I can add to the list of stuff I need to learn. An example of such graphic depictions can be seen in the Takashi Miike’s film Ichi the Killer. The ultra-violent Ichi the Killer is one of his most controversial films, starring Tadanobu Asano as a sadomasochistic yakuza enforcer. The extreme violence was initially exploited to promote the film: during its international premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2001, the audience received "barf bags" emblazoned with the film's logo as a promotional gimmick (one typically flamboyant gory killing involves a character slicing a man in half from head to groin, and severing another's face, which then slides down a nearby wall). The British Board of Film Classification refused to allow the release of the film uncut in Britain, citing its extreme levels of sexual violence towards women. In Hong Kong, 15 minutes of footage was cut. Check out the trailer here: Ichi the Killer trailer (note: this is really, really not for those with weak stomachs).

Aggression has been defined as:

“Behaviour that is intended to hurt another person or group” – Carr

“Behaviour that results in personal injury or destruction of property” – Bandura

“Behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment” – Baron

“The intentional infliction of some form of harm on others” – Baron and Byrne

“Behaviour directed towards another individual carried out with the immediate intent to cause harm” – Anderson & Huesmann

Thus aggression can be defined as antisocial behaviour, behaviour that either damages interpersonal relationships or is culturally undesirable. Aggression may be social or antisocial. It’s interesting how certain notions in studying psychology make so much sense when placed in a structured construct. Aggression is universal – there are certain cultural rules which restrain aggression. Moreover aggression aids social animals – culture offers nonviolent ways of resolving conflicts and problems. This information made me think of lyrics from the almighty Ill Bill which states “without order nothing exists, without chaos nothing evolves”. I feel like this sentiment relates to the mechanics of culture and what people deem “appropriate”. Maybe this is why I absorb myself in various mediums that display aggressive and violent actions. Haha not that I have any desire to commit such acts but beating up innocent pedestrians on a game like Grand Theft Auto definitely does fill a void in my existence.

The types of aggression are:

Hostile aggression: hot impulsive; intentional use of harmful behaviour; the goal is to cause injury to the victim

Instrumental aggression: cold, premeditated; intentional use of harmful behaviour; so that one can achieve some other goal

Passive aggression: harming others by withholding a behaviour

Active aggression: harming others by performing a behaviour

So it appears there are many different forms of aggression other than the ones I had previously considered. So what is aggression good for? The lecture notes explore an evolutionary perspective from Lorenz (1963). Lorenz’s account of aggression and the social life of animals, states: aggression in animals has a protective function. Aggression is exhibited in the defence of young. Within a species, aggression spaces out animals so that they don’t compete for the same resources. Aggression structures animal society. I really thought that this was an appealing source of information. Although I’m not sure if Lorenz’s claims can be generalised to humans, nor can I nullify flaws in this perspective, such as cross-cultural differences and social factors, I feel like I can relate to this research. Yeah they say that violent media exposure tends to be associated with increased aggression, but after learning about the potential positive benefits which stem from the concept of aggression, I have convinced myself (that doesn’t mean it’s justified haha) that my yearning for the observation of gunfire, explosions and beatdowns is just another healthy part of the “self” that I am still trying to figure out. Booyah.

Oh yeah with regards to Ghosts of Rwanda, well I don't really know what to say. Ghosts of Rwanda is a PBS documentary about the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. A lot of this doco was too confronting and too much for me to stomach. A lot of discussion surrounding this horrible event results in finger-pointing. I don't really know how to approach this. I guess what we can extract from this tragedy is to remember Oskar Schindler, and realise the responsibility we have as a society to not ever just follow blindly.

Topic 5 - Prejudice
The issue of prejudice, stereotypes and racism has always been one which has fascinated me. This is probably because I can relate to these issues. I’m sure we have all been discriminated against in our lives. As for myself, being of Chinese Indonesian descent, well I have experienced it too. I really struggled to come to terms with my identity and where I fit in during the late stages of primary school to the early stages of high school. This was probably a result of being called “ching chong chinaman” in kindergarten and getting into a physical scuffle in high school which left me with twenty-one stitches in my left ear. This week was an interesting one so I guess we will explore the important areas as we go along in this entry.

The key concepts of this week’s lecture can be found as follow:

Prejudice: a negative feeling toward an individual based solely on his or her membership in a particular group

Racism: prejudiced attitudes toward a particular race

Aversive racism: simultaneously holding egalitarian values and negative feelings

Discrimination: unequal treatment based on group membership

Stereotype: beliefs that associate groups with traits

Subtypes: categories for people who don’t fit a general stereotype

Social categorization: sorting people into groups on common characteristics

Most prejudice arises from external characteristics. Most people claim not to be prejudiced – behaviour sometimes differs from expressed values. Prejudice comes in many shapes from racism to sexism to ageism. So why does prejudice exist? The text book explains that it is due to:

A tendency to hold stereotypes and prejudice may be innate – content of stereotypes is learned through socialization

People automatically know stereotypes and have to work to override them; Ingroup favouritism – preferential treatment or favourable attitudes toward one’s own group members

Minimal group effect – ingroup favouritism occurs even when group membership was random

Rationalisation for oppression – powerful group retains power through use of stereotypes and prejudices

Prejudice and self-esteem – can be self-affirming; if other groups are inferior, my group (“I”) must be superior

Many stereotypes may be based on genuine difference, but then overgeneralised. Whilst stereotypes can be positive or negative, most seem to be unfavourable. Stereotypes are an odd thing. I mean I am Asian so does that mean I am a bad driver? Or am good with numbers? Maybe yes and maybe no – that’s beside the point. Stereotypes can form on the basis of salience. The scapegoat theory implies that people blame problems on the outgroup, which contributes to negative feelings. Self-serving bias refers to when people make internal attributions for success but refuse external attributions for failure. Discrimination reflects a difficult time and this might lead to individuals behaving in an aggressive manner to outgroups. Conflict and stress bring out stereotypes. People use their stereotypes as hypotheses to be tested rather than rules applicable to all.

Everyone deals with prejudice in their own way. Some take out their frustration with violence. Some keep it all bottled up inside. Some, like comedian Dave Chappelle deal with it with humour. It’s a strange thing I mean, his TV show is pretty hilarious. It uses humour to tackle racial issues, or at least bring them to the forefront. Despite the hilarity of his skits, Chappelle stopped making the show. There are a lot of ignorant people out there who don’t extract the lesson from the skits. Are these funny skits about racism educating people or reinforcing stereotypes? Chappelle felt that instead of bringing people together and teaching, his show was perpetuating these stereotypes and making the racial segregation that already exists in this world, even worse. There are a lot of initiatives going on currently to combat prejudice and discrimination, and I think it’s just a really great thing. I have been a victim of racism. I have a large amount of friends who have been discriminated against. The worst thing about this all is that it is still happening everyday, everywhere, all the time. I sometimes feel like these sorts of things will always be happening regardless of what era we are living in, but you know I guess you just need to put your best foot forward.

Check out one of Chappelle’s skits here from his ever-so-popular show ‘Chappelle’s Show’. Here Chappelle, along with John Mayer, proves that no matter what race you are, you CAN dance: White people CAN dance.

Topic 6 - Relationships
Ahhh relationships... we all yearn to belong and feel that ineffable connection to someone or something. The need to belong refers to the desire to form and maintain close, lasting relationships with other individuals. In the lecture I found it interesting to note that homosapiens:

 * Appear to need contact with other members of their species
 * Experience a powerful drive to form and maintain close lasting relationships
 * Usually form relationships easily
 * Are reluctant to end relationships
 * Seek an optimal balance between social contacts and solitude

The Basic need to belong is not unique to humans – people can be similar on more dimensions, and people spend much time and energy to secure their place in the social group. Moreover belongingness consists of: regular social contact with others, and close, sable, mutually intimate contact. People do not continue to form relationships – typically seek four to six close relationships, even in people-rich environments. I find this to be true as I have many acquaintances, but only few friends I consider close to me.

Relationships are important to me. I place a lot of value on them and try my hardest to sustain the ones that I still have. I, like some of you, have been heartbroken, and it’s interesting to explore the concept of romantic relationships from a psychological viewpoint. I am aware that every relationship is different to an extent but I think it is worth highlighting certain studies and theories as they shed appropriate light on my interest toward relationships and how they might work.

The social exchange theory states that people are motivated to increase benefits and decrease costs in their relationships with others. The equity theory (balance theory) postulates that people are most satisfied with a relationship when the ratio between benefits and contributions is similar for both partners. That is, people prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced, and people are motivated to restore balance in relationships.

So what is love? I’ve been lead to believe that I was once in love. Whether I was or whether it was just infatuation is something I have yet to figure out. According to the text book, there are two types of love:

Passionate love – intense and strong feelings of longing, desire and excitement toward another person; involves physiological arousal; most cultures have romantic love, although forms and expressions vary; not always viewed positively

Companionate love – caring and affection for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined; characterized by high levels of self-disclosure; mutual understanding; caring; commitment; calm, serene emotions; important for successful marriages

Romantic love exists in most cultures, however forms and expression vary by culture, where attitude varies by culture and era. Apparently passionate love is important for starting relationships. Conversely compassionate love is important for making it succeed and survive. In exploring “love” as a logical concept, it is of interest to investigate several of the theories we looked at this week. Sternberg’s triangular model of love comprises of passion (motivational), intimacy (emotional) and commitment (cognitive) components. The motivational component refers to physiological arousal, longing and sexual attraction. The emotional component refers to closeness, sharing, support, understanding and concern. The cognitive component refers to conscious decision, willing to define as love in the long term. Schacter’s 2-factor theory of emotion focuses on the two notions of physical arousal and cognitive appraisal (interpret arousal as love). Lastly, Hatfield and Walster’s 3-factor theory of romantic love consists of cultural exposure, physiological arousal, and the presence of an appropriate love object. Thus according to Hatfield and Walster, if all three of these stars are aligned, romantic love is highly probable.

Relationships and love are a strange concept with an aura of mystery surrounding it. It’s such a universal phenomenon in that we have all experienced things like love, belonging, rejection, attachment and jealousy. As mentioned previously, every relationship is different. I don’t really know if it is ever going to be possible to break relationships and love down into a science. Love is such a fuzzy concept that it really comes down to your own perspective. It’s all relative I guess. I think love, relationships and the rest of that jazz is best summarised in artist John Legend’s lyrics “…everybody knows, but nobody really knows…”

Topic 7 - Groups
Group - a collection of at least two people who are doing or being something together

Power - one person’s control over another person

Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford prison experiment always fascinated me a great deal. Despite no apparent ethical concerns, it was conducted and the results are extraordinary. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities, in order to obtain a representative sample. Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatised and two had to be removed from the experiment early. After a graduate student objected to the inhumane conditions in the prison, and realising that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that everyone including himself had become too absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days. Here is a link to a summary of the experiment: Zimbardo’s experiment. If you get the chance, track the footage down and watch it. The power of conformity within groups is incredibly influential. I guess it really makes you question what it takes to truly be a good leader.

Topic 8 - Prosocial Behaviour
So what is prosocial behaviour? Prosocial behaviour refers to “voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Prosocial behaviour involves doing something good for someone or society, building relationships, helping society to function, and adding to “social capital”. Prosocial behaviour is so important because culture is more than the sum of its parts; because prosocial behaviour builds relationships; and because antisocial behaviour destroys relationships.

The most fascinating aspect of this week was the notion of altruism and whether it is possible. Altruism refers to helping behaviours focused only on the well-being of others (and often at personal cost). Prosocial behaviour does not equal altruism because prosocial behaviour may involve self-interest. There have been arguments against the concept of altruism questioning: if altruistic helpers are only helping to make themselves feel good, aren’t they really just being selfish? Does the innate pleasure we get from helping points to the basic goodness of human nature? Is altruism, then, just as natural as selfishness?

I found the bystander effect extremely interesting. The bystander effect states that people are less likely to help when they are in a group (or in the presence of others) than when they are alone. This concept is best illustrated in the horrific story of Kitty Genovese. On March 13, 1964 Genovese was attacked by a rapist with a knife outside her apartment in Queens, New York. Her screams for help aroused 38 of her neighbours. Many watched from their windows while, for 35 minutes, she tried to escape. None called the police. That story is so upsetting. I would like to think that I am an exception to the bystander effect. I know it’s hard to make such a bold statement when it’s such a circumstantial thing, but next time I’m in a situation which resembles the bystander effect, I will not follow the trend - i will do the right thing. To conclude this week’s entry, here is a clip I found on youtube explaining the bystander effect.

Topic 9 - Environmental Psychology
The following quotes are all courtesy of Oskamp and Schultz (1998):

“Environmental psychology studies the interactions and relations between people and their environments.”

“Traditionally… environmental psychology has emphasized how the physical environment affects human thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. However much recent environmental research has stressed the other side of the coin – how human actions affect the environment.”

“Ecological issues of people’s relationship to their environment, both natural and human-made, have assumed crucial importance to our quality of life, and even to the survival capacity of humanity.”

Research reveals positive, healthy effects of nature-based experiences. I particularly found the ‘nature-deficit disorder’ of interest this week. Nature deficit disorder is a term coined by Richard Louv in his book ‘Last Child in the Woods’ (2005). Louv argues that children are spending less time outdoors, resulting in behavioral problems, exacerbated by parental fears, restricted access to nature, and technology. Apparently doctors and psychologists are being encouraged to consider “green” experiences (in touch with nature) as part of the physical and psychological health promotion, prevention, and treatment regimens. Howard Frumkin put together a literature review of the positive physical health effects of nature in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. It seems there are positive benefits as research has revealed positive, healthy effects of nature-based experiences.

I found these findings and statements extremely encouraging. Over the last few years I have become a bit of a couch potato. I have surrendered to the forces of TV, X-Box 360 and fast food for far too long. Perhaps this is the reminder I needed to get out there and not only get healthy but too appreciate the beautiful environment I am grateful to be a part of.

In conclusion, I think that this quote from Deborah Winter sufficiently addresses the environmental problems that currently exist:

“Most psychologists still think that environmental problems are the concern of environmental scientists but environmental problems are caused primarily by human behaviours, feelings and attitudes. We can’t solve these problems without psychology’s help and we really need psychologists to go work on them.”

Nic's Final Thoughts
I have to say the unit of SP was a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would be. That's not to take away from the content of the unit, it's just that well uni work is uni work and it's just amazing to come across a unit which is so broad that there is bound to be an SP area you will find interesting - it was refreshing. As discussed at the very beginning of this semester, SP is a realm which relates to everything that we do in our daily lives. We as humans are social beings and are influenced positively and negatively by the social constructs and happenings around us. I think that's why I found this unit so enjoyable - because of the various areas with which we can relate to. This e-portfolio format was definitely something new to me but I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I feel like this unit has been one of those moments in one's uni career where they realise how lucky they are to be learning. I may be on the verge of completing this subject, and on a larger scale my degree, but I still have much to learn. This is only the beginning of my journey.

On that note, I would like to thank JN for a wonderful job teaching us this semester.

Peace. I'm out.

Sincerely,

Nix to the Uno

title: User:Nicbroto


text:
User talk:Nicbroto

Well done
Good job on setting up your account,. Let me know if I can do anything as you go along. 'Official' Wikiversity welcome below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Nicbroto, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 10:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello , we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

not sure
about : I am not sure if this was you ? Or if you expect an answer ? But on a question I always want to answer :-) Might this help: Cracking ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nicbroto