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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 : )

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

Appendices:

Appendix A: Self-assessment

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:

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.

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.

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

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 E: Concept map

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

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

Blog 1 - Draft

Hi Everyone, this is my blog 1 draft - it may be a bit all over the place as I still need to edit and check structure etc but I wanted to post it to see if I could get any feedback! Any comments welcome.
Thanks.

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 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. Added is a brief video from ghosts of Rwanda.



Concepts including aggressive behaviour, ethnocentrism, intergroup hostility and prejudice are considered important components which theoretical based research, and furthermore could possibility help to bring resolution to people and the problems that they face (Harrington, 2003/04). Furthermore, Harrington (2003/04) posits that these concepts are incorporated into the common thought of ‘hatred,’ an outward form of aggression. Additionally, it appears as though prejudice, stereotyping and aggression are involved in a circular relationship, each influencing each other and repeating the cycle.

Social Categorisation
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 (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008), themes of this type 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 was 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. This type of categorisation can lead to many different outcomes, including out-group homogeneity bias, the belief that all people within a group are alike (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Furthermore, social categorisation leads to in-group favouritism, favourable attitudes and preferential treatment toward someone in one’s own group as opposed to another group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). 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). Group membership can satisfy the needs of an individual and consequently people organise themselves into groups accordingly (Bar-Tal et al., 1989). The human mind somewhat innately prefers to classify 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). Group membership is one of the most significant and important components of an individual; and consequently perceptions, attitudes and beliefs influence intergroup behaviour and ultimate actions (Bar-Tal et al., 1989).

Stereotyping and Prejudice
Studying the interrelated concepts of stereotyping and prejudice involves analysing group membership, intergroup relationships and human nature (Bar-Tal, Graumann, Kruglanski & Stroebe, 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 concepts of prejudice and stereotyping parallel the common understanding of 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 at stereotyping (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). “A prejudice is an attitude toward members of some outgroup and in which the evaluative tendencies are predominantly negative” (Harding et al., 1954, 1969, cited in Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p. 8). Information processing approaches and consistency theories state that the relationship between stereotyping and prejudice is linked to attitudes toward attributes and the consequent evaluation of either positive or negative attributes (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). In addition, both theories state that stereotyping and prejudice are closely related concepts but they hold alternative views surrounding the direction of causality (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). The information processing approach posits that an individual’s attitude toward a particular social group develops from a significant belief surrounding that group (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). Where as, consistency theories make an additional assumption that changes in a person’s beliefs surrounding a particular social group can develop from attitude change (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). However, social problems become evident when stereotypes and prejudice result in hostile aggressive behaviour and discrimination toward outgroup members (Stroebe & Insko, 1989).
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 (link), 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).

Prejudice and Aggression
Human aggression is “any type of behaviour that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid the harm” (Baron & Richardson, 1994, cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 292). 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). 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 (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). However a flaw within this theory is the lack of explanation surrounding prejudice development, as although this theory can account for the origins of aggression, it cannot explain its targets (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989). Even though the scapegoat theory and the authoritarian personality theory can only offer a partial explanation into the intricate relationship of prejudice, as they cannot explain differences in levels of prejudice or why particular groups become the target for prejudice (Stroebe & Inkso, 1989).

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 was illustrated with 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, which Albert Bandura examined 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.

Aggression and Stereotyping
Stereotypes are defined as “a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people” (Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p. 5). Thirdly, the Social cognition perspective, 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). Social categorisation and social learning developed from this perspective, from the observation that placing individuals in random groups was adequate to influence in-group preference (Harrington, 2003/04).

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).

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).

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 idea illustrates the continual influence of prejudice, stereotyping and aggression on each other and within individuals. 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
Appendices

Concept Map Draft

Just posting my concept map draft so far... any comments would be great. Thanks

Mini concept map

This was my attempt to visually show that prejudice, stereotyping and aggression continually interact and influence each other in a circular fashion. I have a more in-depth concept map that I am working on, but I thought at least this would give me the opportunity to up-load it and see how it looks. It is a bit visually boring but I will work on that...

Blog 1 summary of ideas

Well I have finally chosen my topic after much deliberation. I have posted a brief outline of my blog plan as I am pondering how to structure it. Any thoughts/tips/ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Question summary: relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression. how these 3 social psychological concepts influence each other with reference to theory and research. Helpful to include other related socio-psychological concepts in your concept map.

Abstract

Introduction - brief outline of essay key points

Paragraph 1 (Discuss the concept of prejudice) Within social psychology, prejudice holds an important position, particularly in reference to racial discrimination (Bethlehem, 1985).

Paragraph 2 (Discuss the concept of stereotyping)

Paragraph 3 (Discuss the concept of aggression)

Paragraph 4 (describe how these 3 social psychological concepts influence each other - using theory and research). Using examples from the Rwandan genocide (Ghosts of Rwanda Video (post youtube version) and Australian Eye - Jane Elliot (link to webpage - video).

Conclusion - summarise key points

References
Bethlehem, D. W. (1985). A social psychology of prejudice. UK: Croom Helm. (Check format)

Appendices


Thanks,
Zoe.