Essay Question: Homophily - What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships (see Appendix C), homophily will be explained and hopefully better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction
Homophily, (self-love) coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily exists in daily life structures: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). It has been stated that exchange of messages between a source and receiver that are similar, homophilous, occur more frequently within human interaction (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971). Homophily is seen in demographics of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence, aspirations (McPherson et al.,), beliefs, values and social status (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples (see Appendix C), to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily
Different types of homophily exist, status and value homophily (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily is based on formal, informal or recognised status; and incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values; and involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). Within the concept of liking, techniques such as similarity and familiarity can be ulitised as forms of social persuasion (Sundie, Cialdini, Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2006). Additionally, relationships can also be strengthened by similarity, as it implies possible compatibility with a potential mate (Lehr & Geher, 2006).
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that "similarity begets friendship" (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Additionally, Tarde said “social relations, I repeat, are much closer between individuals who resemble each other in occupation and education” (Tarde, 1903, cited in Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971, p. 525). Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al., p. 417).
Homophily Causes
Geography is the physical foundations in homophily interactions, as individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties which ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. stated organizational foci as another component within homophily, as many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupation have been linked to homophily due to their influence (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that posit people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,). Some of these explanations for homophily are also evident within my personal relationships (see Appendix C).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. One key component of liking someone is based on personality, interests and personal history similarities (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). Reinforcement theory states that people will seek out behaviours that have been rewarded more (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This can be seen within friendships that confirm each others beliefs. As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske, 2004). Psychologically, within the balance theory people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increased if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). These theories of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. This in relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships (see Appendix C).
Homophily Research
Homophily has been examined in school aged children on the basis of gender and race homophily development. Within Shrum, Cheek Jr and Hunter’s (1988) research, participants included 2,135 school children aged 5 to 17 years from public schools, in grades 3 to 12 from a Southern community in America. Overall the results indicated a gradual decline in gender homophily, as gender segregation decreased as the students progressed through the grades into junior high (Shrum et al.,). Gender segregation reversed once students reached junior high, as within elementary school boys originally showed a greater preference to associate with boys, compared to girls wanting to associate with other girls. Racial segregation was original fairly low but increased rapidly until the students reached junior high, indicating a reversal in racial preference and association once the students reached junior high (Shrum et al.,). The results of this research indicated that homophily in regard to certain dimensions varies depending on age. Furthermore, this illuminates the importance of understanding homophily within schools and the possible changes which can be a byproduct of homophily associations.
Homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor of behaviour compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour associate with likeminded people. In regard to my personal relationships my friends and I would be classified as social drinkers, however all our personalities generally match each other and I presume this is why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life. Homophily has a long history and has been explained by the similarity-attraction hypothesis, reinforcement theory and balance theory. Research has examined homophily for many different variables, however the research within this essay discussed research of racial and gender homophily. Consequently it was found that homophily may not be a stable phenomenon for certain variables. Ultimately, homophily is very prominent within my life (see Appendix C), and no matter how much I try to convince myself otherwise I feel I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a non narcissist way of course.
Word Count: 1500
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Lehr, A. T., & Geher, G. (2006). Differential effects of reciprocity and attitude similarity across long- versus short-term mating contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146 (4), 423-439.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27 (1), 47-63.
Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1971). Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (4), 523-538.
Shrum, W., Cheek Jr, J. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school: gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61 (4), 227-239.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Appendix C: Table of Personal Relationships
Appendix D: Others blogs related to similarities and relationships
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Appendix A: Self-Assessment
Appendix A: Self-assessment
1. Theory
I found a few key theories presented within the literature surrounding homophily and discussed these accordingly. I discussed the attraction-similarity hypothesis, explanations for that theory, reinforcement theory and balance theory. I would have liked to discuss these theories in much more depth, however the word limit restricted me. In retrospect, I possibly could have made greater use of appendices in this area, however I did not want to remove important content from my post. I also made links to the theories of homophily in comparison to examples from my own life and this helped show the relevance of the theory to everyday life examples. Therefore I felt I appropriately met this criteria.
2. Research
Research on homophily was very interesting and I found several difference pieces of information. However I had to limit my use of research material in order to fully discuss the research in adequate detail. Even so, I feel that I choose appropriate research to assist my essay on homophily and adequately flushed out the relevant details. I would have liked to include more research into different components of homophily, but again the word limit restricted me. In retrospect I feel I possibly could have made better use of an appendix in this area, but again I did not want to remove important content from the body of my post. Even so, I feel I appropriately met this criteria.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
Flesch Reading Ease: 12.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0
Within my blog I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. Consequently I feel that my blog will reflect appropriate use of APA style referencing. Additionally, I used a table to illustrate my personal relationships in comparson to homophily variables, which I feel assists the overal understanding of homophily. In regard to reader ease I have consciously thought about the layout, and font size and colour to assist reability and consequently I feel I have met this requirement. I consciously aimed to reduce my sentence length and I feel I successfully managed to increase my Flesch Reading Ease rating. Even so, my reading ease was still lower than the recommended rating. I do not know why I consistently get different ratings on the same writing. I feel the low rate is possibily due to the in-text references and sub-headings. Although I periodically checked the reading ease, my overall rating is much lower than I anticipated. Even so, next time I will endevour to check sentence length during the writing process. Furthermore, my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level rating was appropriate. Consequently I feel my written expression was appropriate in regard to the requirements.
4. Online Engagement
In relation to this blog I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community. I have made several posts surrounding different themes within social psychology, and I have listed some of my more significant posts below:
1. Theory
I found a few key theories presented within the literature surrounding homophily and discussed these accordingly. I discussed the attraction-similarity hypothesis, explanations for that theory, reinforcement theory and balance theory. I would have liked to discuss these theories in much more depth, however the word limit restricted me. In retrospect, I possibly could have made greater use of appendices in this area, however I did not want to remove important content from my post. I also made links to the theories of homophily in comparison to examples from my own life and this helped show the relevance of the theory to everyday life examples. Therefore I felt I appropriately met this criteria.
2. Research
Research on homophily was very interesting and I found several difference pieces of information. However I had to limit my use of research material in order to fully discuss the research in adequate detail. Even so, I feel that I choose appropriate research to assist my essay on homophily and adequately flushed out the relevant details. I would have liked to include more research into different components of homophily, but again the word limit restricted me. In retrospect I feel I possibly could have made better use of an appendix in this area, but again I did not want to remove important content from the body of my post. Even so, I feel I appropriately met this criteria.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
Flesch Reading Ease: 12.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0
Within my blog I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. Consequently I feel that my blog will reflect appropriate use of APA style referencing. Additionally, I used a table to illustrate my personal relationships in comparson to homophily variables, which I feel assists the overal understanding of homophily. In regard to reader ease I have consciously thought about the layout, and font size and colour to assist reability and consequently I feel I have met this requirement. I consciously aimed to reduce my sentence length and I feel I successfully managed to increase my Flesch Reading Ease rating. Even so, my reading ease was still lower than the recommended rating. I do not know why I consistently get different ratings on the same writing. I feel the low rate is possibily due to the in-text references and sub-headings. Although I periodically checked the reading ease, my overall rating is much lower than I anticipated. Even so, next time I will endevour to check sentence length during the writing process. Furthermore, my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level rating was appropriate. Consequently I feel my written expression was appropriate in regard to the requirements.
4. Online Engagement
In relation to this blog I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community. I have made several posts surrounding different themes within social psychology, and I have listed some of my more significant posts below:
- Blog 2: topic definition
- Witnessing bystander effect
- Reply to comments on bystander effect
- Rags to Riches: A social experiment
- Alcohol and its consequences
- Homophily Blog 2 Plan
Furthermore I have also commented on several other student's blogs, some of which are listed below:
- Erin's Blog - Blog 2 topic: Pets
- Bec's Blog - Bystander Effect
- Mike's Blog - Week 10 Discussion
- Bec's Blog - Bystander Effect (2)
- Clare's Blog - Attachment Styles
- James' Blog - Free Speech
- Alcoholics are not anonymous - Alcohol
- Beck's Blog - Face Symmetry
I really enjoyed this type of interaction and felt that I appropriately participated as a member of the online community. I feel this type of communication can actually assist people in expressing their views in a non-threatening environment which can foster personal development and idea growth. Thank you for the opportunity to use this concept as an assessment tool.
Appendix B: Links of Interest
I have decided to include some interesting websites and other blog's (non Social Psychology students) that I have found specifically on homophily. Although I did not reference to these sites within my blog, I felt they helped me to understand the topic of homophily more appropriately and were a good starting point.
Websites on Homophily:
Other Blogs on Homophily:
Websites on Homophily:
Other Blogs on Homophily:
Appendix C: Table of Personal Relationships
Table 1 Overview of relationships similarity to myself on different variables
Illustrated in Table 1, it is evident that homophily is present within many of my personal relationships. Particularly in reference to status homophily in relation to my immediate family and friends. I have included information on my ex romantic partner to illustrate our differences and provide a possible explanation for the relationship breakdown, which also provides evidence towards the concept of homophily as we were not very similar.
Illustrated in Table 1, it is evident that homophily is present within many of my personal relationships. Particularly in reference to status homophily in relation to my immediate family and friends. I have included information on my ex romantic partner to illustrate our differences and provide a possible explanation for the relationship breakdown, which also provides evidence towards the concept of homophily as we were not very similar.
Appendix D: Others blogs related to similarities and relationships
I have found two different blogs from other students within Social Psychology that have discussed similarities and relationships within their posts. I have added these as extra information for the importance of similarities within relationships.
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
Reinforcement theory: the proposition that people and animals will perform behaviours that have been rewarded more than they will perform other behaviours
Self-enhancement (motive): the desire to learn favorable or flattering things about the self
Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis: if familiarity underlies attraction, and if the most familiar people are those like us, then people like us are attractive
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Self-enhancement (motive): the desire to learn favorable or flattering things about the self
Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis: if familiarity underlies attraction, and if the most familiar people are those like us, then people like us are attractive
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Draft 1: Blog 2: Homophily Essay
Hey Everyone! I just wanted to post my draft up (I am still working on the final thing) - I have to cut back on my words and re-edit and add in some more on research but I thought I would publish it and possibily get some feedback...any feedback/comments welcome! Thanks!!
Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships, homophily will be explained and ultimately better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction (need to possibily re-work)
Homophily, the term coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the adage of “birds of a feather flock together,” which follows the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily is evident within many daily life structures. These can include: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other types of relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). More specifically, homophily theory states that contact between people that are similar will occur more frequently than people who are dissimilar (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, genetic, cultural, behavioural and material information will tend to be contained within a smaller area (McPherson et al.,). Homophily can be seen within demographics of gender, age, race/ethnic, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence and aspirations (McPherson et al.,). Furthermore, research has shown strong evidence for the existence of homophily on a variety of dimensions (Currarini et al.,). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily Types
It has been stated that different types of homophily exist. More specifically status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily is based on the concept on formal, informal or recognised status; where as value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). These two different types of homophily illustrate the deeper idea behind the concept. Many people will say “oh no my partner and I are totally different, opposites attract,” but it has become clearer to me that the underlying concept of homophily goes deeper than recreational or hobby differences between friends, partners or family. It’s not as fickle as ‘he likes football and I like shopping’ it is about strong attitudes and beliefs about world concepts and ideas. If someone disputed something you strongly believed in or fight for, I would highly doubt a strong friendship would blossom without serious effort and negotiation.
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that “similarity begets friendship” (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, within the sociological field, is the classic work of Lazarsfeld and Merton and their study of friendship (McPherson et al.,). Additionally Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Causes
In terms of homophily, it is important to acknowledge possible influences over the idea of liking those similar to us. Geography plays an essential role in homophily interactions as it is common sense that individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity compared to those that are further away (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties. Although geography has been acknowledged as a physical foundation for homophily, family connections ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. discuss organizational foci as another component within homophily, more specifically many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupational have been linked to homophily. This has been likened to the idea that similar people will inhabit similar positions in life and often elicit influence on each other (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, McPherson et al. has stated that a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. Several factors can contribute to liking someone, and one key component is based on similarities, such as: personality, interests and personal history (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske). The principle of the balance theory is that psychological, people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increase if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). Consequently this theory posits that people like to agree with their friends and in reciprocation like to befriend those who confirm and agree with them (Fiske). Both these theory of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. Which is relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships.
Homophily Research
(need to add a little more in here regarding: Differences for gender, age, more research etc)
The theory of homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour are going to look for and association with those who will participate in such behaviour. It seems common interactions illustrate the point that “birds of a feather do really flock together.” In regard to my personal relationships my friends and are would be classified as social drinkers, with the odd binge, however all our styles match each other and I presume this is the basis as to why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life for all people. The concept of homophily rings true within my personal relationships as within my family those who I choose to spend more time with, excluding compulsory family events, are those that are like minded and similar to myself in many ways. These include educational status, deep seeded beliefs and attitudes and overall outlook on life. However within my family, age and gender do not seem to play a key role. In relation to romantic partners it has become clearer to me the extent that homophily exists within my life, as my boyfriend and I were not particularly similar and consequently the relationship ended, once again proving that opposites may attract but eventually may also repel. Finally in relation to my close friends we are very similar in regard to age, education, values and attitudes. I feel this is why our friendship has become strong as it follows the principle of reinforcement theory; those who make us feel good are more likely to elicit greater bonds and overall friendship. Therefore within my life I feel homophily is very prominent and no matter much I try to convince myself otherwise I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a totally non narcissist way of course!
References:
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the compostion of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27(1), 47-63.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices (need to check correct format/spelling for APA)
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships, homophily will be explained and ultimately better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction (need to possibily re-work)
Homophily, the term coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the adage of “birds of a feather flock together,” which follows the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily is evident within many daily life structures. These can include: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other types of relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). More specifically, homophily theory states that contact between people that are similar will occur more frequently than people who are dissimilar (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, genetic, cultural, behavioural and material information will tend to be contained within a smaller area (McPherson et al.,). Homophily can be seen within demographics of gender, age, race/ethnic, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence and aspirations (McPherson et al.,). Furthermore, research has shown strong evidence for the existence of homophily on a variety of dimensions (Currarini et al.,). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily Types
It has been stated that different types of homophily exist. More specifically status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily is based on the concept on formal, informal or recognised status; where as value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). These two different types of homophily illustrate the deeper idea behind the concept. Many people will say “oh no my partner and I are totally different, opposites attract,” but it has become clearer to me that the underlying concept of homophily goes deeper than recreational or hobby differences between friends, partners or family. It’s not as fickle as ‘he likes football and I like shopping’ it is about strong attitudes and beliefs about world concepts and ideas. If someone disputed something you strongly believed in or fight for, I would highly doubt a strong friendship would blossom without serious effort and negotiation.
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that “similarity begets friendship” (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, within the sociological field, is the classic work of Lazarsfeld and Merton and their study of friendship (McPherson et al.,). Additionally Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Causes
In terms of homophily, it is important to acknowledge possible influences over the idea of liking those similar to us. Geography plays an essential role in homophily interactions as it is common sense that individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity compared to those that are further away (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties. Although geography has been acknowledged as a physical foundation for homophily, family connections ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. discuss organizational foci as another component within homophily, more specifically many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupational have been linked to homophily. This has been likened to the idea that similar people will inhabit similar positions in life and often elicit influence on each other (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, McPherson et al. has stated that a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. Several factors can contribute to liking someone, and one key component is based on similarities, such as: personality, interests and personal history (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske). The principle of the balance theory is that psychological, people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increase if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). Consequently this theory posits that people like to agree with their friends and in reciprocation like to befriend those who confirm and agree with them (Fiske). Both these theory of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. Which is relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships.
Homophily Research
(need to add a little more in here regarding: Differences for gender, age, more research etc)
The theory of homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour are going to look for and association with those who will participate in such behaviour. It seems common interactions illustrate the point that “birds of a feather do really flock together.” In regard to my personal relationships my friends and are would be classified as social drinkers, with the odd binge, however all our styles match each other and I presume this is the basis as to why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life for all people. The concept of homophily rings true within my personal relationships as within my family those who I choose to spend more time with, excluding compulsory family events, are those that are like minded and similar to myself in many ways. These include educational status, deep seeded beliefs and attitudes and overall outlook on life. However within my family, age and gender do not seem to play a key role. In relation to romantic partners it has become clearer to me the extent that homophily exists within my life, as my boyfriend and I were not particularly similar and consequently the relationship ended, once again proving that opposites may attract but eventually may also repel. Finally in relation to my close friends we are very similar in regard to age, education, values and attitudes. I feel this is why our friendship has become strong as it follows the principle of reinforcement theory; those who make us feel good are more likely to elicit greater bonds and overall friendship. Therefore within my life I feel homophily is very prominent and no matter much I try to convince myself otherwise I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a totally non narcissist way of course!
References:
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the compostion of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27(1), 47-63.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices (need to check correct format/spelling for APA)
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Homophily blog 2 plan
Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to briefly post up my ideas on my structure for blog 2 and hopefully get some feedback.
My question is: Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
I want to discuss:
homophily history
homophily types
homophily differences for gender, age etc
possible homophily causes
homophily theory
homophily research
While interlinking examples from my own life (i.e family, friends and partner's). I was going to use my own examples in a separate area but after thinking about flow I have decided it may work best if my examples are given after information about homophily...
I am not sure which order things need to go in yet - just playing around with it for the moment.
I have also found other blogs on homophily which I will link to and hopefully link to within my post...
Homophily and Association
The limits of homophily
Homophily Theory
Thanks! any feedback is welcome...
I just wanted to briefly post up my ideas on my structure for blog 2 and hopefully get some feedback.
My question is: Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
I want to discuss:
homophily history
homophily types
homophily differences for gender, age etc
possible homophily causes
homophily theory
homophily research
While interlinking examples from my own life (i.e family, friends and partner's). I was going to use my own examples in a separate area but after thinking about flow I have decided it may work best if my examples are given after information about homophily...
I am not sure which order things need to go in yet - just playing around with it for the moment.
I have also found other blogs on homophily which I will link to and hopefully link to within my post...
Homophily and Association
The limits of homophily
Homophily Theory
Thanks! any feedback is welcome...
Monday, October 8, 2007
Alcohol and its consequences...
Alcohol, readily flowing and easily available at social and celebration events for most people, but what is the true cost lurking behind its initial purchase price. I have noticed a couple of posts surrounding alcohol and well it got me thinking. I was going to originally pick the second blog topic on alcohol but then I thought to myself “I already know a fair bit about alcohol, so I will choose a different topic, one that I can learn from.” But after that initial thought and reading other student’s posts, it’s got me thinking how much do I really know? How much does any person really know about alcohol?
First of all let me start by saying that I am no angel in this department, and I have had my fair share of alcohol, but lately my thoughts are changing. I often find myself telling friends who are smokers that they should just quit. It’s expensive, bad for their health, and just generally unappealing (from my perspective anyway). I cannot see one positive for smoking, yet I do participate with many fellow individuals in having a drink every now and again. This triggered many thoughts in me, as although I have heard drinking, particularly binge drinking is bad for health it has never been a factor within my choices. It is only somewhat recently that I have really started to look at the consequences of binge drinking. It can be expensive, bad for your health, make you get into situations you regret and can cause problems between families, partners and friends. Somewhere along the line I knew these things, yet for the sake of a good time, ignorance factored in. Short-term effects can be hangovers, loss of money, or respect, where as long term effects can be as serious as relationship breakdowns, inability to maintain a job, serious health/mental problems, homelessness, effects of pre-natal alcohol exposure, and well the list goes on. Furthermore, pre-natal alcohol exposure can cause long and lasting effects, for both mother and child. I could go on about this aspect surrounding alcohol but I won’t go into it here, and I may post a separate blog about alcohol use and pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong, I also realise that a few drinks can create a “happier” atmosphere but it can also cause a lot of damage. After many years of going out, I have seen and heard some shocking alcohol fuelled stories, some of which has happened to personal friends. After going out on the weekend for a friends birthday and really observing the people around me, it’s pleasing to think that my view of alcohol and drinking maybe adapting. While I was out I noticed a group of young girls who were wearing matching shirts with a slogan on the back stating “so do you want to buy me a drink” or something like that. Among other thoughts, I thought whether or not these girls had thought about the possible consequences, besides scoring a free drink, of having this written on their back. I think it illuminated to everyone that these girls were planning a big night and that they would let a total stranger assist them, when maybe normally they would not. It’s amazing to think that so many people would have had bad experiences from alcohol, whether by participating in bad choices, injury (physically or psychologically), expense (from cost or losing items) or even having a killer hangover etc. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the phase “I’m never drinking again” I’d be a rich girl, yet the alcohol keeps flowing and those people who utter those phrases are generally back on it the very next weekend. On a separate tangent, I heard something about attempts to curve alcohol problems at the car races, so the restriction of one “slab” per person per day was in place. But I thought to myself – that is still a lot of alcohol for one person, particularly when a “slab” can constitute 24 drinks, and according to a friend in some cases 36 drinks. You constantly hear stories that someone was pressured into drinking heavily etc, but where along the line did these types of behaviour become the social norm?
I don’t want to sound like the alcohol grinch and as I said I do like to have a drink every now and again, but after really thinking it through my views have been slightly altered. I know many people can enjoy alcohol responsibly but many people likewise cannot. I realise that alcohol will continue to be consumed at great rates, but I hope somewhere along the line people will realise the damaging effects alcohol can cause and will just give that an extra thought before racing to the bar for another round.
Additionally, I have added some links to other posts on alcohol - however if I missed any please let me know and I will add them in.
Thanks.
First of all let me start by saying that I am no angel in this department, and I have had my fair share of alcohol, but lately my thoughts are changing. I often find myself telling friends who are smokers that they should just quit. It’s expensive, bad for their health, and just generally unappealing (from my perspective anyway). I cannot see one positive for smoking, yet I do participate with many fellow individuals in having a drink every now and again. This triggered many thoughts in me, as although I have heard drinking, particularly binge drinking is bad for health it has never been a factor within my choices. It is only somewhat recently that I have really started to look at the consequences of binge drinking. It can be expensive, bad for your health, make you get into situations you regret and can cause problems between families, partners and friends. Somewhere along the line I knew these things, yet for the sake of a good time, ignorance factored in. Short-term effects can be hangovers, loss of money, or respect, where as long term effects can be as serious as relationship breakdowns, inability to maintain a job, serious health/mental problems, homelessness, effects of pre-natal alcohol exposure, and well the list goes on. Furthermore, pre-natal alcohol exposure can cause long and lasting effects, for both mother and child. I could go on about this aspect surrounding alcohol but I won’t go into it here, and I may post a separate blog about alcohol use and pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong, I also realise that a few drinks can create a “happier” atmosphere but it can also cause a lot of damage. After many years of going out, I have seen and heard some shocking alcohol fuelled stories, some of which has happened to personal friends. After going out on the weekend for a friends birthday and really observing the people around me, it’s pleasing to think that my view of alcohol and drinking maybe adapting. While I was out I noticed a group of young girls who were wearing matching shirts with a slogan on the back stating “so do you want to buy me a drink” or something like that. Among other thoughts, I thought whether or not these girls had thought about the possible consequences, besides scoring a free drink, of having this written on their back. I think it illuminated to everyone that these girls were planning a big night and that they would let a total stranger assist them, when maybe normally they would not. It’s amazing to think that so many people would have had bad experiences from alcohol, whether by participating in bad choices, injury (physically or psychologically), expense (from cost or losing items) or even having a killer hangover etc. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the phase “I’m never drinking again” I’d be a rich girl, yet the alcohol keeps flowing and those people who utter those phrases are generally back on it the very next weekend. On a separate tangent, I heard something about attempts to curve alcohol problems at the car races, so the restriction of one “slab” per person per day was in place. But I thought to myself – that is still a lot of alcohol for one person, particularly when a “slab” can constitute 24 drinks, and according to a friend in some cases 36 drinks. You constantly hear stories that someone was pressured into drinking heavily etc, but where along the line did these types of behaviour become the social norm?
I don’t want to sound like the alcohol grinch and as I said I do like to have a drink every now and again, but after really thinking it through my views have been slightly altered. I know many people can enjoy alcohol responsibly but many people likewise cannot. I realise that alcohol will continue to be consumed at great rates, but I hope somewhere along the line people will realise the damaging effects alcohol can cause and will just give that an extra thought before racing to the bar for another round.
Additionally, I have added some links to other posts on alcohol - however if I missed any please let me know and I will add them in.
Thanks.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Rags to Riches: A social experiment
I briefly caught part of the Oprah show today and the story I saw surrounded a social experiment. Transcripts and information are available from the Oprah website on three separate pages: page one, page two, and page three.(Picture from oprah.com)
The story surrounded Ted Rodrigue, a 45-year-old, periodically homeless man for the past 20 years. In a documentary "Reversal of Fortune," filmmaker Wayne Powers tells Ted that he wants to make a film on what its like to be homeless, but he also had other plans in mind for the documentary.
One day while Ted was sorting through a dumpster for bottles and cans which he used to obtain money he found a briefcase with $100, 000 cash, which had been planted by Wayne.
"There [were] a lot of emotions all at once," Ted says about finding the briefcase. "I thought I was going to get shot. I thought it was drug money. Then I thought it was a prop for the movie, and I would have to give it back. It didn't sink in for a good half an hour—then I knew [it was mine to keep]."
Wayne says that he was inspired to create this film as he said he often had daily interactions with homeless people asking for money and he thought, "'What would happen if I actually was able to give someone $100,000 and the free will to do with it what they wanted to do?'" he says. "Would that turn their life around or would it create more problems?"
Wayne stated that they searched for a participant who could pass a psychiatric evaluation, a medical and a drug test, who ended up being Ted. Wayne states that he was at first optimistic about the money as Ted talked about change. He wanted to get an apartment, a job and was happy. Furthermore, Wayne felt that maybe this opportunity would really help Ted turn his life around.
Ted received financial counselling and support however unfortunately old habits die hard. Ted continued to collect cans and bottles which had supported him for many years. Slept on the floor within his hotel room and was generous with his new found wealth. He paid friends' debts, bought a car for a friend, a expensive truck for himself and got married.
"You never think…the money's going to run out sooner or later," Ted says. "At the time I was living in L.A., and I thought with having that money, I could go back to Sacramento and reunite with my family, and that it would change everything. It did for a while—I had more friends than I could count."
Ted stated that not only is all the money now gone but he is now in further debt. Ted states that "I thought it would erase all my problems. I thought I would never be homeless again," he says. "But, like I said, I made a couple of bad choices."
The bad choices surrounded the car purchased, getting his teeth fixed, turning down job offers and giving so much of the money away. Additionally his marriage, as his wife left when the money ran out.
"It was a frustrating process, in a way, because I think that there were a lot of opportunities sent Ted's way," Wayne says. "And while you're with someone, and the closer you get to them, and the more that you kind of root for them and understand them, the more frustrating it gets when those opportunities are passed by. I think that it shows that, from a personal story, people that are homeless, there are certain demons inside them. … I think alcoholism plays a part of that. I learned that in providing somebody with the necessities to be able to turn their life around, a car, a telephone, a roof above their head, a driver's license, all the things that we hear is what somebody needs to be able to turn their life around, it still, unfortunately, in this particular case, was not enough.
"Back living on the street, Ted says, "I'm not happy, but I'm contented."
Unfortunately it appears as though in this case, all the money did was cause more problems. In regard to further debt, 'friends' and generally bad choices. I found this story particularly interesting as while I was travelling I often saw homeless people and I wanted to give them something, whether it was money or a warm jacket (it was winter when I was travelling). However, I was constantly told by other people that it wouldn't make a difference etc. It is sad to think of Ted's outcome and that in this case his old habits did die hard. However this wouldn't necessarily be the case for everyone in this situation. Even so, this documentary provided an interesting look into social experiments.
If you saw the show, please feel free to comment on any thoughts you may have surrounding this story. Additionally, any comments or thoughts are welcome surrounding any aspect of this blog/post.
Thank You,
Zoe.
References:
The Oprah Winfrey Show. (2007). Rags to Riches: Controversial "Reversal". Harpo Productions.
The Oprah Winfrey Show. (2007). Rags to Riches: A Homeless Man's "Reversal of Fortune". Harpo Productions.
The Oprah Winfrey Show. (2007). Rags to Riches: Did Money Change a Homeless Man's Life?. Harpo Productions.
Monday, September 24, 2007
YouTube video - Social Psychology Project
Hi Everyone,
While searching through YouTube for videos surrounding social psychology I found this video. It follows the reactions of people when they believe a 'mad woman' is wandering around. It made me think what would my reaction be, as I sometimes I see 'strange' characters on the street but I usually just go about my business.
Please let me know what you think and also how you feel you would react. Has anyone seen anything like this in real life? and how did it make you think/feel?
Thanks.
While searching through YouTube for videos surrounding social psychology I found this video. It follows the reactions of people when they believe a 'mad woman' is wandering around. It made me think what would my reaction be, as I sometimes I see 'strange' characters on the street but I usually just go about my business.
Please let me know what you think and also how you feel you would react. Has anyone seen anything like this in real life? and how did it make you think/feel?
Thanks.
YouTube Video - Social Psychology
Hi Everyone,
I found this video on YouTube very interesting as most people at some point would have been faced with some sort of related dilemma. The observation within the video is kind of a spin off of bystander effect. It follows peoples reactions surrounding helping a person who has dropped a pile of files, and if one particular gender is more helpful. Although they then test how far they can push it and if anyone will continue to help. Interesting clip to watch and I must admit I don't think i'd continue to help if they stopped...what would you do? and has something like this ever happened to you? I must say watching all these set-up's makes me second-guess the realness of the situation and wonder if somewhere someone with a camera is simply just observing...
Thanks!
I found this video on YouTube very interesting as most people at some point would have been faced with some sort of related dilemma. The observation within the video is kind of a spin off of bystander effect. It follows peoples reactions surrounding helping a person who has dropped a pile of files, and if one particular gender is more helpful. Although they then test how far they can push it and if anyone will continue to help. Interesting clip to watch and I must admit I don't think i'd continue to help if they stopped...what would you do? and has something like this ever happened to you? I must say watching all these set-up's makes me second-guess the realness of the situation and wonder if somewhere someone with a camera is simply just observing...
Thanks!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Big 5 Personality Result
After reading Rebecca's post surrounding her blog 2 topic I followed the link and participated in the online test of the big five personality factors. My results can be seen at I'm a O41-C86-E79-A63-N27 Big Five!!. My results somewhat surprised me, compared to results I have received on other tests for the big five personality factors. In particular being higher or lower on certain traits. However, others seemed quite accurate. I think using online tests can be quite fun for a brief description of personality traits however I feel my answers may differ depending on my mood, situation etc. Nevertheless it was still a quick and fun test. It would be interesting to know if anyone else finds their result similar or opposing previous test results...
Thanks.
Thanks.
Friday, September 21, 2007
More on blog 2 topic - Homophily
According to an abstract of an article by McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook, "the homophily principle—structures network ties of every type, including marriage, friendship, work, advice, support, information transfer, exchange, comembership, and other types of relationship" (2001), abstract). I feel that the concept of homophily opposes some common sayings such as "opposites attract" or "chalk and cheese." Many people would have heard the saying "birds of a feather flock together" and this saying complements the theory of homophily well. In relation to my personal relationships I feel that although I usually form close bonds/relationships with people similar to me I can also see relationships within my life where we are completely different. This will be an interesting area for me to discuss within my second blog and I am excited about researching more into this topic.
I would like to hear anyone's thoughts surrounding this concept and personal relationships. Do you think that your relationships reflect similarities to yourself or do you think that you look for differences? Also do you think this occurs naturally or are you conscious of your preferences?
Thanks
References
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & J. M. Cook. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415 - 444. Retrieved from http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415?cookieSet=1&journalCode=soc
I would like to hear anyone's thoughts surrounding this concept and personal relationships. Do you think that your relationships reflect similarities to yourself or do you think that you look for differences? Also do you think this occurs naturally or are you conscious of your preferences?
Thanks
References
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & J. M. Cook. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415 - 444. Retrieved from http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415?cookieSet=1&journalCode=soc
Reply to comments on bystander effect
Thanks to everyone's comments surrounding my blog on "bystander effect." It is a very prominent and real phenomena within our society. While studying social psychology in college a friend and I investigated the bystander effect using the common scenario of a broken down car with a driver of different ages and both genders. It was interesting to discuss and also frightening to realise the many associating factors that contribute to someone's initiative to help another person. Within society today, and rising crime rates it is a relatively normal reaction to double guess the realness of a situation. This complicates things and makes the ultimate decision a whole lot harder. I think this phenomena is very real and obvious and mostly likely will continue to exist. On a different note the blog by Bec is a very extreme case of bystander effect and produced a very real emotional response in me and I would imagine in many other people. Understanding and having awareness of this psychological factor is important and hopefully with conscious awareness individuals may help to overcome the bystander effect.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Witnessing "Bystander effect"
After posting my blog I noticed that Bec has posted some extremely interesting and relevant examples of bystander effect - I have added a link to one which discussed the lady I discuss within my post. Bec has several different examples of bystander effect on her blog which really emphasise the impact this concept has upon everyone in society.
This is my personal experience with bystander effect...While at woden plaza last weekend I noticed a well dressed, older male completely slouched down in his chair in the food court. ( I mention his appearance and description as this type of situation occurred, I think in Western Australia - please correct me if I am wrong - a few years ago and speculation as to why no one helped/noticed was surrounding her appearance and description). Although he appeared as though he was sleeping I was worried that maybe something horrible had happened to him and with "bystander effect" in full force everyone who saw him just assumed he was okay and besides someone else will check on him. I told my friend who I was with that we should check if he was okay, but my friend was like "no don't worry, see that cleaner is sending a message through about him now." I noticed that the cleaner who was reporting the older man was also asking a nearby shop assistant who replied "he has been there for ages, I think he is just sleeping." I felt weary about approaching the man in case he really was just sleeping and would be startled and flip out if I were to wake him. Consequently I was convinced not to worry and we walked off. When we went past a few minutes later luckily a young man was kneeling down talking to him.
This made me even more aware of the "bystander effect" and how I even fell into this trap... of being concerned also about my own safety over that of another person who may have been in a critical condition. This got me thinking about "Altruism" and the common thought that no act is truly altruistic. I think this scenario could lead me into several other psychological concepts however I will leave it there. Any information or comments surrounding a similar situation or thoughts regarding what you would do in this situation would be great. I am glad I saw he was okay otherwise it would probably still be on my mind. Next time I hope I listen to my own instincts and not be discouraged by another person or my personal concern for myself.
Thanks.
This is my personal experience with bystander effect...While at woden plaza last weekend I noticed a well dressed, older male completely slouched down in his chair in the food court. ( I mention his appearance and description as this type of situation occurred, I think in Western Australia - please correct me if I am wrong - a few years ago and speculation as to why no one helped/noticed was surrounding her appearance and description). Although he appeared as though he was sleeping I was worried that maybe something horrible had happened to him and with "bystander effect" in full force everyone who saw him just assumed he was okay and besides someone else will check on him. I told my friend who I was with that we should check if he was okay, but my friend was like "no don't worry, see that cleaner is sending a message through about him now." I noticed that the cleaner who was reporting the older man was also asking a nearby shop assistant who replied "he has been there for ages, I think he is just sleeping." I felt weary about approaching the man in case he really was just sleeping and would be startled and flip out if I were to wake him. Consequently I was convinced not to worry and we walked off. When we went past a few minutes later luckily a young man was kneeling down talking to him.
This made me even more aware of the "bystander effect" and how I even fell into this trap... of being concerned also about my own safety over that of another person who may have been in a critical condition. This got me thinking about "Altruism" and the common thought that no act is truly altruistic. I think this scenario could lead me into several other psychological concepts however I will leave it there. Any information or comments surrounding a similar situation or thoughts regarding what you would do in this situation would be great. I am glad I saw he was okay otherwise it would probably still be on my mind. Next time I hope I listen to my own instincts and not be discouraged by another person or my personal concern for myself.
Thanks.
Blog 2 topic definition
My blog 2 topic is homophily but I wanted to clarify the meaning for everyone as I know my initial thought of homophily was completely different to the actual meaning. I have posted a link to the definition of Homophily for everyone just in case anyone is curious. To me this concept is deeply embedded within my social world and I also notice it a lot even within my own family and their friends. I think this topic will be particularly interesting and I am looking forward to researching and writing about homophily. I will continue to post any information or anything I find surrounding this topic - so keep an eye out if your interested.
Any ideas or comments surrounding this topic would be great!
Thanks.
Any ideas or comments surrounding this topic would be great!
Thanks.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Funny pic
Hi Everyone, in keeping with another psychology class and the essay topic I found this very amusing...I hope makes you laugh as much as it made me : )
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Blog 1: The interrelatedness of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression
The interrelatedness of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression
Abstract
Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are common words used within everyday vocabulary. The interrelatedness of these concepts is of interest and has been researched by some classical theorists in social psychology. Several theories examine the underlying concepts of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression either solely or together. However, a conceptual model has been developed to examine the influences and relationship of these concepts. Links will be made to a concept map which visually represents the conceptual model of integration. Understanding the influence of these components could assist future awareness and aid people within their daily life situations.
Introduction
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination and intergroup aggression have traditionally been thought socially relevant and highly important components for research (Harrington, 2003/04). Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are interrelated concepts which have influenced each other within history and continue within today’s society. These concepts are evident within society and in films, Ghosts of Rwanda, following the Rwandan Genocide; and Australian Eye, a documentary of Jane Elliot's work. Within the conceptualised relationship model, prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are involved in a circular relationship, each influencing each other and continuously repeating the cycle.
Social Categorisation and Stereotyping
Social categorisation is sorting people into groups based on common characteristics which can include: race, religion, sexuality, gender and age (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This concept refers to an 'us' versus 'them', or the 'ingroup' versus the 'outgroup' mentality (Baumeister & Bushman). Evident in both Ghosts of Rwanda and Australian Eye. Within Ghosts of Rwanda, the in-group were the Hutu’s and the out-group were the Tutsi’s. Moreover, within Jane Eliott’s experiment, the brown eyed people were the ingroup versus the blue eyed people in the outgroup. These themes are presented within the concept map and show the direct link between stereotyping and social categorisation. This is one of the key components of the overall relationship model between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression.
Social categorisation can lead to many outcomes, including outgroup homogeneity bias and ingroup favouritism (Baumeister & Bushman ,2008), which have been included in the model (see concept map), linked to social categorisation and stereotyping. Additionally, minimal group effect (Baumeister & Bushman), is also integrated. The human mind somewhat innately classifies people and objects into groups; acting as a mental shortcut (Baumeister & Bushman). People assume individual behaviour can be predicted based on the group associated with the individual (Baumeister & Bushman). Thus, 'cognitive heuristic' was included in the model as it links the basis of stereotyping. Perceptions, attitudes and beliefs influence intergroup behaviour and ultimate actions (Bar-Tal, Graumann, Kruglanski & Stroebe, 1989). This concept of attitudes, beliefs and consequent actions integrates underlying factors of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, illustrating the influence each factor holds and consequently why these have been incorporated into the model presented in the concept map.
Stereotyping and Prejudice
Studying the interrelated concepts of stereotyping and prejudice involves analysing group membership, intergroup relationships and human nature (Bar-Tal et al., 1989). Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and possibly help to decrease everyday problems (Harrington, 2003/04). Prejudice and stereotyping parallels attitudes and opinions or beliefs (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). A negative intergroup attitude usually makes up the components of prejudice; whereas opinions or beliefs about a particular social group and their attributes is classified as stereotyping (Stroebe & Insko). However, as noted in the concept map, attitudes can either be positive or negative. Stroebe and Insko state that the relationship between stereotyping and prejudice is linked to attitudes toward attributes, and the consequent evaluation of either positive or negative attributes. In addition, stereotyping and prejudice are closely related concepts but they hold alternative views surrounding the direction of causality (Stroebe & Insko). Social problems become evident when stereotypes and prejudice result in hostile aggressive behaviour and discrimination toward outgroup members (Stroebe & Insko). This statement illustrates the relationship between the three components and can be seen as linking factors within the model presented in the concept map. Also this component was highly evident within Australian Eye.
In relation to prejudice, approaches aim to explain the interrelated and intrapersonal concepts of out-group devaluation, treatment and rejection (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Prejudice is believed to be the result of intrapersonal conflict, not social learning processes or societal conflicts (Stroebe & Inkso). The authoritarian personality theory, provides explanations for the development of prejudice, and states three assumptions (Stroebe & Inkso). Prejudice is correlated with alternative economic, political and social beliefs and is part of a broader ideological framework; secondly, this relatedness is due to more basic personality characteristics; and lastly, personality basis of prejudice is mainly the result of parental influence (Stroebe & Inkso). The term authoritarian personality has been integrated into the overall conceptualisation, as this theory explains prejudice and its relationship to other psychological components (see concept map). Research by Stanley Milgram helped to form the basis of this theory, from his work with obedience and authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04), and consequently this is another aspect within the model conceptualisation.
Prejudice and Aggression
Aggression is an observable behaviour; aggression is intended to harm, it is not accidental; and victims of aggression want to avoid injury (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Consequently, aggression was a key aspect within Ghosts of Rwanda. In relation to theory, the scapegoat theory assumes that displaced aggression is commonly placed onto members of minority groups, by blaming the frustration or characterising negative attributes to the minority group, however it cannot explain its targets (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Both these concepts have been utilised within the concept map and are linked with the out-group linked to prejudice behaviour of discrimination and social categorisation and stereotyping. These theories have been integrated into the model as they offer insight into the development of prejudice and can therefore foster greater understanding of the overall relationship involved.
At least three approaches have been used by social psychologists to examine prejudice and intergroup hostility, a form of aggression (Harrington, 2003/04) . Firstly, the social influence perspective illustrated by Stanley Milgram, which investigated how the presence of other people can influence an individual’s thinking and behaviour (Harrington). This approach has been useful in noting the behaviours of both individuals and groups when advised by authority figures (Harrington). Additionally, within this perspective, the concept of social learning theory applies through Albert Bandura's work into the components of modelling and aggression (Harrington). Secondly, the socio-political attitudes perspective, from Theodor Adorno and others research, published within 'The Authoritarian Personality' (Harrington). This area has been of interest in relation to interpersonal aggression and intergroup hostility (Harrington). The third perspective is social-cognition which will be discussed in relation to aggression and stereotyping. These terms have been integrated into the concept map and contribute to the overall conceptualisation, as they examine the inner relationship between stereotyping and aggression, and assist overall understanding.
Aggression and Stereotyping
Stereotypes are explained by the social cognition perspective, the third perspective stated by Harrington (2003/04). This theory developed from observations that the human mind is imperfect, and consequently utilises mental shortcuts in order to categorise objects within the social world (Harrington). Both social categorisation and social learning developed from the social cognition perspective, from the observation that placing individuals in random groups was adequate to influence in-group preference (Harrington). This fits into theories surrounding cognitive heuristics related primarily to stereotyping, prejudice and the consequent behaviour which can be aggressive. This is another aspect involved within the conceptualised model as it illustrates environmental links, stereotypes and consequent aggression.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression
The study of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, involves three main fields to help explain their origins (Harrington, 2003/04) . Socio-political areas including authoritarian and social dominance theories aim to explore individual differences and consequent implications for prejudice (Harrington). Additionally, social cognition research aids in stereotype formation understanding; theories including diffusion of responsibility, deindividuation and conformity help explain aggressive behaviour in groups (Harrington). These concepts were also evident within Ghosts of Rwanda. Social identity theory examines intergroup hostility and insight into social categorisation and group formation (Harrington). Not all of these terms have been discussed in great detail as the basis of theory for prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are somewhat similar. However, a few key factors have been linked within the conceptual model (see concept map).
In regard to classic theories and research, this field of thought involved some of the well known experiments still discussed today. These include: Sherif’s construction of social norms; Asch’s conformity; Milgram’s obedience to authority; Zimbardo, Haney, Banks and Jaffe power of social roles; and Latané and Darley bystander intervention (Harrington, 2003/04). With some of these classic experiments developed as particular explanations for intergroup conflict or aggression (Harrington). The work of Milgram, Bandura and Zimbardo have consequently been integrated into the conceptualised model of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. As this research provides insight into the inner workings of the components and aids understanding into the relationship.
Conclusion
Stereotyping consists of opinions and beliefs about a certain social group, where as prejudice involves holding negative intergroup attitudes and from these beliefs aggression can develop. This illustrates the continual influence of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression in everyday situations. Also evident within both Ghosts Of Rwanda and Australian Eye. These concepts will continue to influence both society and individual members of a social group. Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and aim to influence positive change for all people. The model has only drawn on a few key areas within this field to assist and further understand the influencing concepts involved. However an interesting and somewhat intricate relationship has been conceptualised surrounding prejudice, stereotyping and aggression and their consequent influence.
References
Bar-Tal, D., Graumann, C. F., Kruglanski, A. W., & Stroebe, W.
(1989). Preface. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W.
Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice:
changing conceptions (pp. v – vi). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology
and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bethlehem, D. W. (1985). A social psychology of prejudice. UK:
Croom Helm.
Harrington, E. R. (2003/04). The social psychology of hatred.
Journal of Hate Studies, 3(1), 49-82.
Stroebe, W., & Inkso, C. A. (1989). Stereotype, prejudice, and
discrimination. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W.
Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice:
changing conceptions (pp. 3 – 34). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved September
2, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendix B: Other
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Appendix D: Theorists Mentioned in Blog Essay
Appendix E: Concept Map
Appendix F: Links of Interest
Abstract
Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are common words used within everyday vocabulary. The interrelatedness of these concepts is of interest and has been researched by some classical theorists in social psychology. Several theories examine the underlying concepts of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression either solely or together. However, a conceptual model has been developed to examine the influences and relationship of these concepts. Links will be made to a concept map which visually represents the conceptual model of integration. Understanding the influence of these components could assist future awareness and aid people within their daily life situations.
Introduction
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination and intergroup aggression have traditionally been thought socially relevant and highly important components for research (Harrington, 2003/04). Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are interrelated concepts which have influenced each other within history and continue within today’s society. These concepts are evident within society and in films, Ghosts of Rwanda, following the Rwandan Genocide; and Australian Eye, a documentary of Jane Elliot's work. Within the conceptualised relationship model, prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are involved in a circular relationship, each influencing each other and continuously repeating the cycle.
Social Categorisation and Stereotyping
Social categorisation is sorting people into groups based on common characteristics which can include: race, religion, sexuality, gender and age (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This concept refers to an 'us' versus 'them', or the 'ingroup' versus the 'outgroup' mentality (Baumeister & Bushman). Evident in both Ghosts of Rwanda and Australian Eye. Within Ghosts of Rwanda, the in-group were the Hutu’s and the out-group were the Tutsi’s. Moreover, within Jane Eliott’s experiment, the brown eyed people were the ingroup versus the blue eyed people in the outgroup. These themes are presented within the concept map and show the direct link between stereotyping and social categorisation. This is one of the key components of the overall relationship model between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression.
Social categorisation can lead to many outcomes, including outgroup homogeneity bias and ingroup favouritism (Baumeister & Bushman ,2008), which have been included in the model (see concept map), linked to social categorisation and stereotyping. Additionally, minimal group effect (Baumeister & Bushman), is also integrated. The human mind somewhat innately classifies people and objects into groups; acting as a mental shortcut (Baumeister & Bushman). People assume individual behaviour can be predicted based on the group associated with the individual (Baumeister & Bushman). Thus, 'cognitive heuristic' was included in the model as it links the basis of stereotyping. Perceptions, attitudes and beliefs influence intergroup behaviour and ultimate actions (Bar-Tal, Graumann, Kruglanski & Stroebe, 1989). This concept of attitudes, beliefs and consequent actions integrates underlying factors of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, illustrating the influence each factor holds and consequently why these have been incorporated into the model presented in the concept map.
Stereotyping and Prejudice
Studying the interrelated concepts of stereotyping and prejudice involves analysing group membership, intergroup relationships and human nature (Bar-Tal et al., 1989). Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and possibly help to decrease everyday problems (Harrington, 2003/04). Prejudice and stereotyping parallels attitudes and opinions or beliefs (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). A negative intergroup attitude usually makes up the components of prejudice; whereas opinions or beliefs about a particular social group and their attributes is classified as stereotyping (Stroebe & Insko). However, as noted in the concept map, attitudes can either be positive or negative. Stroebe and Insko state that the relationship between stereotyping and prejudice is linked to attitudes toward attributes, and the consequent evaluation of either positive or negative attributes. In addition, stereotyping and prejudice are closely related concepts but they hold alternative views surrounding the direction of causality (Stroebe & Insko). Social problems become evident when stereotypes and prejudice result in hostile aggressive behaviour and discrimination toward outgroup members (Stroebe & Insko). This statement illustrates the relationship between the three components and can be seen as linking factors within the model presented in the concept map. Also this component was highly evident within Australian Eye.
In relation to prejudice, approaches aim to explain the interrelated and intrapersonal concepts of out-group devaluation, treatment and rejection (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Prejudice is believed to be the result of intrapersonal conflict, not social learning processes or societal conflicts (Stroebe & Inkso). The authoritarian personality theory, provides explanations for the development of prejudice, and states three assumptions (Stroebe & Inkso). Prejudice is correlated with alternative economic, political and social beliefs and is part of a broader ideological framework; secondly, this relatedness is due to more basic personality characteristics; and lastly, personality basis of prejudice is mainly the result of parental influence (Stroebe & Inkso). The term authoritarian personality has been integrated into the overall conceptualisation, as this theory explains prejudice and its relationship to other psychological components (see concept map). Research by Stanley Milgram helped to form the basis of this theory, from his work with obedience and authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04), and consequently this is another aspect within the model conceptualisation.
Prejudice and Aggression
Aggression is an observable behaviour; aggression is intended to harm, it is not accidental; and victims of aggression want to avoid injury (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Consequently, aggression was a key aspect within Ghosts of Rwanda. In relation to theory, the scapegoat theory assumes that displaced aggression is commonly placed onto members of minority groups, by blaming the frustration or characterising negative attributes to the minority group, however it cannot explain its targets (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Both these concepts have been utilised within the concept map and are linked with the out-group linked to prejudice behaviour of discrimination and social categorisation and stereotyping. These theories have been integrated into the model as they offer insight into the development of prejudice and can therefore foster greater understanding of the overall relationship involved.
At least three approaches have been used by social psychologists to examine prejudice and intergroup hostility, a form of aggression (Harrington, 2003/04) . Firstly, the social influence perspective illustrated by Stanley Milgram, which investigated how the presence of other people can influence an individual’s thinking and behaviour (Harrington). This approach has been useful in noting the behaviours of both individuals and groups when advised by authority figures (Harrington). Additionally, within this perspective, the concept of social learning theory applies through Albert Bandura's work into the components of modelling and aggression (Harrington). Secondly, the socio-political attitudes perspective, from Theodor Adorno and others research, published within 'The Authoritarian Personality' (Harrington). This area has been of interest in relation to interpersonal aggression and intergroup hostility (Harrington). The third perspective is social-cognition which will be discussed in relation to aggression and stereotyping. These terms have been integrated into the concept map and contribute to the overall conceptualisation, as they examine the inner relationship between stereotyping and aggression, and assist overall understanding.
Aggression and Stereotyping
Stereotypes are explained by the social cognition perspective, the third perspective stated by Harrington (2003/04). This theory developed from observations that the human mind is imperfect, and consequently utilises mental shortcuts in order to categorise objects within the social world (Harrington). Both social categorisation and social learning developed from the social cognition perspective, from the observation that placing individuals in random groups was adequate to influence in-group preference (Harrington). This fits into theories surrounding cognitive heuristics related primarily to stereotyping, prejudice and the consequent behaviour which can be aggressive. This is another aspect involved within the conceptualised model as it illustrates environmental links, stereotypes and consequent aggression.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression
The study of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, involves three main fields to help explain their origins (Harrington, 2003/04) . Socio-political areas including authoritarian and social dominance theories aim to explore individual differences and consequent implications for prejudice (Harrington). Additionally, social cognition research aids in stereotype formation understanding; theories including diffusion of responsibility, deindividuation and conformity help explain aggressive behaviour in groups (Harrington). These concepts were also evident within Ghosts of Rwanda. Social identity theory examines intergroup hostility and insight into social categorisation and group formation (Harrington). Not all of these terms have been discussed in great detail as the basis of theory for prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are somewhat similar. However, a few key factors have been linked within the conceptual model (see concept map).
In regard to classic theories and research, this field of thought involved some of the well known experiments still discussed today. These include: Sherif’s construction of social norms; Asch’s conformity; Milgram’s obedience to authority; Zimbardo, Haney, Banks and Jaffe power of social roles; and Latané and Darley bystander intervention (Harrington, 2003/04). With some of these classic experiments developed as particular explanations for intergroup conflict or aggression (Harrington). The work of Milgram, Bandura and Zimbardo have consequently been integrated into the conceptualised model of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. As this research provides insight into the inner workings of the components and aids understanding into the relationship.
Conclusion
Stereotyping consists of opinions and beliefs about a certain social group, where as prejudice involves holding negative intergroup attitudes and from these beliefs aggression can develop. This illustrates the continual influence of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression in everyday situations. Also evident within both Ghosts Of Rwanda and Australian Eye. These concepts will continue to influence both society and individual members of a social group. Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and aim to influence positive change for all people. The model has only drawn on a few key areas within this field to assist and further understand the influencing concepts involved. However an interesting and somewhat intricate relationship has been conceptualised surrounding prejudice, stereotyping and aggression and their consequent influence.
References
Bar-Tal, D., Graumann, C. F., Kruglanski, A. W., & Stroebe, W.
(1989). Preface. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W.
Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice:
changing conceptions (pp. v – vi). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology
and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bethlehem, D. W. (1985). A social psychology of prejudice. UK:
Croom Helm.
Harrington, E. R. (2003/04). The social psychology of hatred.
Journal of Hate Studies, 3(1), 49-82.
Stroebe, W., & Inkso, C. A. (1989). Stereotype, prejudice, and
discrimination. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W.
Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice:
changing conceptions (pp. 3 – 34). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved September
2, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices:
Appendix B: Other
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Appendix D: Theorists Mentioned in Blog Essay
Appendix E: Concept Map
Appendix F: Links of Interest
Appendix A: Self-assessment
Appendix A: Self-assessment
1. Theory
In regard to the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression many different theories were available. I had to pick the theories carefully based on what they offered to my blog and the integration they involved between the concepts of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. I feel the theories I discussed were important to the topic, however it is important to acknowledge that other theories exist and the few that I chose are not the only theories for consideration within this area. In retrospect I feel I could have gone into more depth on some key theories as opposed to briefly discussing the theories I chose.
2. Research
I found within this area of research, some of the older classical experiments were discussed. It was difficult to fully flush out the details of each research and consequently I added links to more information if they were available. Due to the word count discussing the full details of all the research was difficult therefore I provided links to assist the reader’s task. In retrospect, I would like to have included more research into the key themes and flush out the main points within the research. In addition, it would have been useful to discuss the research findings in conjunction with my conceptual model in more depth. Also in retrospect using current research may have strengthened by blog, although while researching for this blog, I found current research was difficult to locate. Even so, I would endeavour to search harder next time.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
1. Theory
In regard to the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression many different theories were available. I had to pick the theories carefully based on what they offered to my blog and the integration they involved between the concepts of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. I feel the theories I discussed were important to the topic, however it is important to acknowledge that other theories exist and the few that I chose are not the only theories for consideration within this area. In retrospect I feel I could have gone into more depth on some key theories as opposed to briefly discussing the theories I chose.
2. Research
I found within this area of research, some of the older classical experiments were discussed. It was difficult to fully flush out the details of each research and consequently I added links to more information if they were available. Due to the word count discussing the full details of all the research was difficult therefore I provided links to assist the reader’s task. In retrospect, I would like to have included more research into the key themes and flush out the main points within the research. In addition, it would have been useful to discuss the research findings in conjunction with my conceptual model in more depth. Also in retrospect using current research may have strengthened by blog, although while researching for this blog, I found current research was difficult to locate. Even so, I would endeavour to search harder next time.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
Flesch Reading Ease 5.5
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.0
I found I got inconsistent results from using the readability analysis tools. Therefore I do not know exactly what figures I should be reporting. On the same text I got three different scores. I am pleased with my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level as 12.0 was a recommended level. This score was originally higher, however I altered some vocabulary and this brought the level down to 12.0. However, I am very displeased with my Flesch Reading Ease of 5.5. I feel this was probably due to my sentence length and possibility even because of the in text referencing used. Therefore in retrospect I would check these analyses sooner and therefore have appropriate time to edit and aim for better readability. Next time I will particularly pay attention to my sentence length.
I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. I am fairly confident with using APA format and I feel my blog will reflect my knowledge of APA style effectively.
I have added a concept map displaying my interpretation of the relationship between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression which should assist a reader’s understanding. I made reference to my concept map within my blog and tried to adequately link the two appropriately.
I feel the layout and style of my blog is easy to read as I adjusted the font, size and colour to make it easier to read. I realise this is an important aspect for readability and I feel this criteria is appropriately met.
In retrospect I feel my concept map could have been improved, by showing in more details the interconnectedness of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression.
4. Online Engagement
I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community, I have written several blogs surrounding common themes in social psychology, including blogs on: amazing grace, a follow-up of amazing grace part 2, social experiments, ideas surrounding this blog and a draft concept map for this blog topic. In addition I have commented on others blogs, some of which surrounded communication, stereotyping and attitude change. At first I was daunted by the concept of online blogging but I feel I have progressed, in regard to my own ideas and blogs but also in commenting on others blogs, over the last few weeks. I intend to continue my active online engagement as I find this form of communication really exciting and fresh. I am hoping to improve my knowledge surrounding the technological aspects of blogging and I hope to continue to think and write exciting blogs which elicit responses from my fellow online community members.
I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. I am fairly confident with using APA format and I feel my blog will reflect my knowledge of APA style effectively.
I have added a concept map displaying my interpretation of the relationship between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression which should assist a reader’s understanding. I made reference to my concept map within my blog and tried to adequately link the two appropriately.
I feel the layout and style of my blog is easy to read as I adjusted the font, size and colour to make it easier to read. I realise this is an important aspect for readability and I feel this criteria is appropriately met.
In retrospect I feel my concept map could have been improved, by showing in more details the interconnectedness of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression.
4. Online Engagement
I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community, I have written several blogs surrounding common themes in social psychology, including blogs on: amazing grace, a follow-up of amazing grace part 2, social experiments, ideas surrounding this blog and a draft concept map for this blog topic. In addition I have commented on others blogs, some of which surrounded communication, stereotyping and attitude change. At first I was daunted by the concept of online blogging but I feel I have progressed, in regard to my own ideas and blogs but also in commenting on others blogs, over the last few weeks. I intend to continue my active online engagement as I find this form of communication really exciting and fresh. I am hoping to improve my knowledge surrounding the technological aspects of blogging and I hope to continue to think and write exciting blogs which elicit responses from my fellow online community members.
Appendix B: Other
Appendix B: Other
I have added a brief video of the ghosts of Rwanda, to give the reader a snippet of the films basis and to prevent a break in the flow of my blog.
I have also included a link to a website showing a series of videos on Jane Elliot's original work. However the link will take you away from this post, and does not allow you to navigate back.
A link of interest has also been provided which describes the experiment seen within the film Australian Eye.
I have added a brief video of the ghosts of Rwanda, to give the reader a snippet of the films basis and to prevent a break in the flow of my blog.
I have also included a link to a website showing a series of videos on Jane Elliot's original work. However the link will take you away from this post, and does not allow you to navigate back.
A link of interest has also been provided which describes the experiment seen within the film Australian Eye.
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Definitions provided by: (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
Conformity - going along with the crowd.
Deindividuation - the loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability in a group.
Ingroup members - people who belong to the same group or category as we do.
Minimal group effect - people show favoritism toward ingroup members even when group membership is randomly determined.
Outgroup homogeneity bias - the assumption that outgroup members are more similar to one another than ingroup members are to one another.
Outgroup members - people who belong to a different group or category than we do.
Prejudice - a negative feeling toward an individual based solely on his or her membership in a particular group.
Scapegoat theory - blaming problems and misfortunes on outgroups contributes to negative attitudes toward these outgroups.
Self-defeating prophecy - a prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will come true.
Self-fulfilling prophecy - a prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will come true.
Self-serving bias - a pattern in which people claim credit for sucess but deny blame for failure.
Social categorization - the process of sorting people into groups on the basis of characteristics they have in common (e.g., race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation).
*Social influence theory - has been useful in explaining the behaviour of individuals in groups or individuals given requests by important authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04).
*Social learning theory - (paraphrased) stereotypes and prejudice result from socialization. (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989).
Stereotypes - beliefs that associate groups of people with certain traits.
Definitions provided by: (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
*Indicates a different source.
Aggression - any behavior intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid the harm.
Authoritarian personality - is a pattern of cross-situational attitudes and behaviors that reflect conventional values, respect for authourity figures, and a desire to punish others who defy authority.
Confirmation bias - the tendency to look for information that supports our views.Conformity - going along with the crowd.
Deindividuation - the loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability in a group.
Diffusion of responsibility - the reduction in feeling responsible that occurs when others are present.
Discontinuity effect - groups are more extreme, and often more hostile, than individuals.
*Ethnocentrism - a tendency to glorify the ingroup while denigrating outgroups (Bethlehem, 1985).
In-group favouritism - preferential treatment of, or more favourable attitudes toward, people in one's own group.Ingroup members - people who belong to the same group or category as we do.
Minimal group effect - people show favoritism toward ingroup members even when group membership is randomly determined.
Outgroup homogeneity bias - the assumption that outgroup members are more similar to one another than ingroup members are to one another.
Outgroup members - people who belong to a different group or category than we do.
Prejudice - a negative feeling toward an individual based solely on his or her membership in a particular group.
Scapegoat theory - blaming problems and misfortunes on outgroups contributes to negative attitudes toward these outgroups.
Self-defeating prophecy - a prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will come true.
Self-fulfilling prophecy - a prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will come true.
Self-serving bias - a pattern in which people claim credit for sucess but deny blame for failure.
Social categorization - the process of sorting people into groups on the basis of characteristics they have in common (e.g., race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation).
*Social influence theory - has been useful in explaining the behaviour of individuals in groups or individuals given requests by important authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04).
*Social learning theory - (paraphrased) stereotypes and prejudice result from socialization. (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989).
Stereotypes - beliefs that associate groups of people with certain traits.
Appendix D: Theorists Mentioned in Blog Essay
Appendix D: Theorists Mentioned in Blog Essay
Solomon Asch - Conformity
Albert Bandura - Social Learning Theory
John Darley and Bibb Latané - Bystander intervention
Stanley Milgram - Obedience to Authority
Muzafer Sherif - Construction of Social Norms
Philip Zimbardo - Power of Social Roles (Stanford Prison Experiment)
Appendix F: Links of Interest
Links of Interest:
Australian Eye Experiment - an overview of the experiment which was seen within Australian Eye.
Ghosts of Rwanda brief video - a brief overview of the film Ghosts of Rwanda.
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Australian Eye Experiment - an overview of the experiment which was seen within Australian Eye.
Ghosts of Rwanda brief video - a brief overview of the film Ghosts of Rwanda.
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Blog 1: Draft 2
Hi Everyone, just posting another draft. Any comments/feedback would be great as I don't know if I have covered everything appropriately. Thanks
The interrelatedness of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression
Introduction
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination and intergroup aggression have traditionally been thought of as socially relevant and highly important components for research (Harrington, 2003/04). Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are interrelated concepts which have influenced each other within history and continue within today’s society. These concepts are evident within society and have been documented in film, Ghosts of Rwanda, following the Rwandan Genocide; and Australian Eye, a documentary of Jane Elliot's work. It appears as though prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are involved in a circular relationship, each influencing each other and repeating the cycle.
Social Categorisation and Stereotyping
Social categorisation is the process of sorting people into different groups based on common characteristics which can include: race, religion, sexuality, gender and age (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This concept refers to an us versus them, or alternatively the in-group versus the out-group mentality (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). These types of categorisation can be seen in both Ghosts of Rwanda and Australian Eye. Within Ghosts of Rwanda, the in-group were the Hutu’s and the out-group were the Tutsi’s. Moreover, within Jane Eliott’s experiment, the brown eyed people were the in-group versus the blue eyed people in the out-group. These themes are presented within the concept map provided and showed the direct link between stereotyping and social categorisation. This is one of the key components of the overall conceptualisation of the interrelated terms of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression.
Social categorisation can lead to many different outcomes, including out-group homogeneity bias, the belief that all people within a group are alike; and in-group favouritism, favourable attitudes and preferential treatment toward someone in one’s own group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). These concepts have been included within concept map, linked to social categorisation and originally stereotyping. Additionally, even if group membership is randomly assigned, people have the tendency to show favouritism to in-group members, which is known as minimal group effect (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The human mind somewhat innately classifies people and objects into groups as opposed to thinking about their separate counterparts (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Classifying people into groups acts as a mental shortcut and consequently people believe individual behaviour can be predicted based on the group associated with the individual (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Perceptions, attitudes and beliefs influence intergroup behaviour and the ultimate actions (Bar-Tal, Graumann, Kruglanski & Stroebe, 1989). This concept of attitudes, beliefs and consequent actions integrates the factors underlying prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, and illustrates the influence each factor holds.
Stereotyping and Prejudice
Studying the interrelated concepts of stereotyping and prejudice involves analysing group membership, intergroup relationships and human nature (Bar-Tal et al., 1989). Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and possibly help to decrease problems which face many people everyday (Harrington, 2003/04). The concept of prejudice and stereotyping parallels attitudes and opinions or beliefs (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). A negative intergroup attitude usually makes up the components of prejudice; where as opinions or beliefs about a particular social group and their attributes is classified as stereotyping (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). However, as noted in the concept map, attitudes can either be positive or negative. Stroebe and Insko (1989) posit that the relationship between stereotyping and prejudice is linked to attitudes toward attributes and the consequent evaluation of either positive or negative attributes. In addition, stereotyping and prejudice are closely related concepts but they hold alternative views surrounding the direction of causality (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). Social problems become evident when stereotypes and prejudice result in hostile aggressive behaviour and discrimination toward outgroup members (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). This statement illustrates the relationship between the three components and can be seen as linking factors within the concept map.
In relation to prejudice, both psychodynamic and cognitive approaches aim to explain the interrelated and intrapersonal concepts surrounding out-group devaluation, treatment and rejection (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Within the psychodynamic theories, prejudice is believed to be the result of intrapersonal conflict, not social learning processes or societal conflicts (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). The authoritarian personality, provides explanations for the development of prejudice, and states three assumptions (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Firstly, prejudice is correlated with alternative economic, political and social beliefs and is therefore part of a broader ideological framework; secondly, this relatedness is due to more basic personality characteristics; and lastly, personality basis of prejudice is mainly the result of parental influence (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). The term authoritarian personality has been integrated into the overall conceptualisation, which can be seen within the concept map. Research by Stanley Milgram helped to form the basis of this theory, from his work with obedience and authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04), and consequently this is another aspect within this relationship conceptualisation.
Prejudice and Aggression
Aggression has three key points: aggression is an observable behaviour; aggression is intended to harm, it is not accidental; and victims of aggression want to avoid injury (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In relation to theory, the scapegoat theory assumes that displaced aggression is commonly placed onto members of minority groups, by blaming the frustration or characterising negative attributes to the minority group, however it cannot explain its targets (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Even though the scapegoat theory and the authoritarian personality theory cannot explain differences in levels of prejudice or why certain groups become targets (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Even so, both these concepts have been utilised within the concept map and can be seen to be linked with the out-group which is linked to prejudice behaviour of discrimination and social categorisation and stereotyping.
According to Harrington (2003/04) at least three approaches have been used by social psychologists to examine prejudice and intergroup hostility, a form of aggression. Firstly, the social influence perspective illustrated by Stanley Milgram’s experiments, which investigated how the presence of other people can influence an individual’s thinking and behaviour (Harrington, 2003/04). This approach has been useful in noting the behaviours of both individuals and groups when advised by authority figures (Harrington, 2003/04). Additionally, within this perspective, the concept of social learning theory applies through Albert Bandura work into the components of modelling and aggression (Harrington, 2003/04). Secondly, Harrington (2003/04) notes the socio-political attitudes perspective, most widely known from Theodor Adorno and others research, published within The Authoritarian Personality. This area has been of interest in relation to interpersonal aggression and intergroup hostility (Harrington, 2003/04). The third perspective is social-cognition which can be related to aggression and stereotyping. Consequently, these terms have also been integrated into the concept map and contribute to the overall conceptualisation.
Aggression and Stereotyping
Stereotypes are explained by the social cognition perspective, is the third perspective stated by Harrington (2003/04), this developed from observations that the human mind is imperfect, and consequently utilises mental shortcuts in order to categorise objects within the social world (Harrington, 2003/04). Both social categorisation and social learning developed from the social cognition perspective, from the observation that placing individuals in random groups was adequate to influence in-group preference (Harrington, 2003/04). This fits into theories surrounding cognitive heuristics related primarily to stereotyping, prejudice and the consequent behaviour which can be aggressive. This is another aspect involved within the conceptualised model.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression
According to Harrington (2003/04) the study of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, involves three main fields help to explain their origins. Socio-political areas including authoritarian and social dominance theories aim to explore individual differences and consequent implications for prejudice (Harrington, 2003/04). Additionally, social cognition research aids in stereotype formation understanding; theories including diffusion of responsibility, de-individuation and conformity help explain aggressive behaviour in groups (Harrington, 2003/04). Social identity theory examines intergroup hostility and insight into social categorisation and group formation (Harrington, 2003/04). Not all of these terms have been discussed in great detail however the basis of theory for prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are somewhat similar in information available.
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression Research
In regard to classic theories and research, this field of thought involved some of the well know experiments still discussed today. These include: Sherif’s construction of social norms; Asch’s conformity; Milgram’s obedience to authority; Zimbardo, Haney, Banks and Jaffe power of social roles; and Latané and Darley bystander intervention (Harrington, 2003/04). With some of these classic experiments developed as particular explanations for intergroup conflict or aggression (Harrington, 2003/04). The work of Milgram, Bandura and Zimbardo have been integrated into the conceptualisation of the interrelated concept of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression as these theorists provided insight into the inner workings of each component. Their work has been added to the model as their research has provided useful information into the basis of these terms.
Conclusion
Stereotyping consists of opinions and beliefs about a certain social group, where as prejudice involves holding negative intergroup attitudes and from these beliefs aggression can develop. This illustrates the continual influence of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression in everyday situations. These concepts will continue to influence both society and individual members of a social group. Understanding the interrelatedness of these concepts can assist awareness and aim to influence positive change for all people.
References
Bar-Tal, D., Graumann, C. F., Kruglanski, A. W., & Stroebe, W. (1989). Preface.
In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: changing conceptions (pp. v – vi). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human
nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bethlehem, D. W. (1985). A social psychology of prejudice. UK: Croom Helm.
Harrington, E. R. (2003/04). The social psychology of hatred. Journal of Hate
Studies, 3(1), 49-82.
Stroebe, W., & Inkso, C. A. (1989). Stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination. In
D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Strobe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: changing conceptions (pp. 3 – 34). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Appendices (add links)
Appendix A: Self-assessment
Appendix B: Other
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Appendix D: Key Theorists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
