Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PSYC 315 Essays - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Adorno et al. (1950)
        
        Criticisms of Adorno et al.
        
        Freudian approach no longer relevant, Adorno criticised for this.
        
        Altemeyer's (1998) RWA Scale
        
        Validated scale across cultures to measure Authoritarianism
        
        Perceived threats motivate the child to seek control over environment (Duckitt, 2001 )
        
        1 more item...
        
        Democratic type
        
        Tolerant, democratic & egalitarian.
        
        Potential fascist
        
        Rigid, intolerant, hostile to people who are different.
        
        Leaders such as Hitler & Trump.
  - - - Authoritarian leaders driven by Tough Mindedness - 'beat them or they'll beat us' mentality
        
        Whitley & Kite, 2017 RWA related to prejudice against gays, lesbians, native Americans, feminists & obese people.
        
        Individuals attracted to a wide range of prejudices Brown & Pehrson, 2020
  - - - Duckitt's (2005) Dual Process Model RWA & SDO are linked to prejudice towards different groups.
        
        SDO = Prejudiced against competing groups. See the world as a 'competitive jungle'. Hostility is functional in competition with other groups.
        
        RWA = Prejudiced against norm-threatening groups. See the world as a 'dangerous and threatening place'.
        
        SDO affected by priming manipulations - if thinking about race - will have a racist score on the scale, if thinking about sex/gender - will have a sexist score on the scale Brown & Pehrson, 2020.
  - - - SDO & RWA are theories that locate prejudice within the person. Look to the individual for explanation of prejudice towards multiple groups - personality related?
        
        SDO & RWA explain different aspects of prejudice Altemeyer, 1998
        
        People high in both RWA & SDO tend to be most prejudiced Brown & Pehrson, 2020
  - - - In times of competition and threat, RWA & SDO grow and are affected, more authoritarian as the world becomes more unstable and violent.
        
        More like social attitudes than personality dimensions Sibley & Duckitt, 2009
        
        Personality is fixed, but prejudice can change.
  - - - Authoritarianism cannot account for the widespread nature or historical specificity of prejudice.
- - - - Developed from self-definitions in terms of group membership & has been expanded on.
        
        Expanded on through development of many sub-theories which help to explain other areas of psyc: stereotypes, conformity & social influence Hornsey, 2008.
        
        SIT is now a reliable perspective on the collective self, group, and inter-group processes Hogg & Ridgeway, 2003
        
        Tajfel, 1974 recognised:
        
        Individuals seek a + self-concept
        
        Groups are an important part of our self-esteem & pride because groups give us a sense of social identity.
        
        Personal identity and social identity having different influences on the way we define ourselves.
        
        He identified a 3-stage process of group formation.
        
        Critiques: Methodological limitations; self-esteem no longer central to theory; doesn't consider influence of environmental factors - social constraints, majority WEIRD research.
  - - - Tajfel & Turner (1979) argued self-concepts vary on a continuum of social and personal identity, making up two sub-systems of self-concept. (Brown & Pehrson, 2020, Hunter et al., 1996)
        
        Personal Identity: Individual's self-concept is described in personal, characteristic terms Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        Social Identity: Individual's self-concept is derived from their membership(s) of a group/s and the values/beliefs that group holds Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        Context-dependent individual/group behaviours and displays of social & personal identity Hornsey, 2008
        
        To be a group member, you must take on the norms, values and beliefs of the group Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        SIT proposes 3-stage process of social categorisation, social identification and social comparison.
        
        Social Comparison exists because groups do not exist on their own, they are defined on their comparison to other groups Hornsey (2008).
        
        1 more item...
        
        Social Identification of ones group = where inter-group behaviour/interactions begin. Recognises identity in socially defined terms - in-group/out-group - & interactions based on this distinction Tajfel, 1974
        
        1 more item...
        
        Social Categorisation = distinct ordering of social environment, groupings represent a cognitive system of order that is meaningful to the individual Tajfel, 1974
        
        1 more item...
        
        This affects your views of your own and of other groups.
        
        Seek a + social identity, place own group as superior to others Brown & Pehrson, 2020
  - - - Expanded on to include Turner's self-categorisation theory which discusses intra-group processes & is part of the overarching SIT approach Hornsey, 2008
        
        Much reliable research done around the world supporting SIT Huddy, 2001
        
        Generate further research, new perspectives, provide explanations: group solidarity & cohesiveness, stereotyping, group polarisation, social influence, conformity & power Hornsey, 2008; Hogg & Ridgeway, 2003
        
        Influenced other domains: Communication, political psychology, and organisational psychology Hornsey (2008).
        
        Demonstrates role of social categorisation & inter-group behaviours & the resulting negative consequences: discrimination, competition, hostility Hornsey, 2008; Huddy, 2001
        
        Social identity as a key aspect in creating change through group membership creating an applicable basis for groups to respond to situations where they are made to feel inferior to others E.g. BLM protests Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Though use of MGP studies is also a weakness of SIT - Tajfel criticised for this for lack of ecological validity when trying to generalise results & prove claims made regarding inter-group conflict Huddy, 2001
        
        Minimal groups = one category, so risk ignoring complexities of real-life categories Reicher, 2004
        
        SIT not considering environmental factors:
        
        Distinct Western narrative as SIT was developed in European social psychology.
        
        Important to study group motives and behaviour within context of the group, consider cross-cultural research, due to previous psychological research based on WEIRD cultures Hornsey, 2008; Heine & Norenazayan, 2010
        
        Individualistic approach in explanations of identity outcomes means SIT criticised for not fully considering inter-personal social interactive structures e.g. social structures and beliefs Hogg, Terry & White, 1995
        
        Use of reductionist principles in studies that support SIT have been critiqued due to oversimplifying individual processes and cognitive aspects of the theory Hornsey, 2008
        
        Important to evaluate SIT as a personal, cultural and historical construct Reicher, 2004
  - - - 3-stage process of group formation
        
        Helps to explain understanding of inter-group conflict & peace Hogg, 2016
        
        Self-concept at the core of of SIT -how one perceives themselves & their characteristics Hogg, 2016
        
        Pursuit of + self-concept enveloped in social identity. Well-supported Hogg, 2016
        
        Demonstrated how people have a rather subjective sense to seek belonging in the most minimal of circumstances Tajfel & Turner, 1979
        
        Some methodological limitations, continued research needs to address these for it to be relevant to the modern, changing world.
- - - - Effects of socialisation on prejudice not straightforward:
        
        Development of prejudice in children is non-linear, most prejudiced at ages 5-7, then tapers off as children get older, understand social norms and what is appropriate.
        
        Most studies show that although parental and children's attitudes are linked, parental attitudes only account for a small amount, so the rest of children's prejudiced attitudes must be coming from elsewhere Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        Children not bound to be prejudiced, rather the dynamic view explains it as an interaction process.
  - - - Clarke & Clarke 1947 Children presented with doll, identify if it is b/w. 3/4 of children aged 3 could correctly identify with the correct ethnic group.
        
        Kelly et al. 2015, 2017 - Showed White infants photos of White, Middle Eastern, Asian and Black adults. No difference at a few days but by 3 months infants showed a preference for in-group faces.
        
        Distinction does not matter, infants want to be surrounded by faces they see the most (in-group).
  - - - Bigler et al., 1997 Examined prejudice in children aged 6-9. Put children into either a blue or yellow group in a classroom. Children showed consistent biases with favour of their own group. Children with high self-esteem showed the most in-group bias. Children's understanding of in-group/out-group dynamics develops early on Brown & Pehrson, 2020
        
        Anecdotal evidence Katz, 2003 of black children rejecting black dolls because they 'look bad' or 'do bad things'. Children pick up on stereotypes & wider social influence.
  - - - Parents, peer influence, the media & society (direct socialisation).
        
        Parents: SDO & RWA parents associated with more inter-group biases among their children Ruffman et al., 2020
        
        High relationship between authoritarian parents and authoritarian children Brown & Pehrson, 2020.
        
        Association between parent's & children's political attitudes. Parental attitudes accounted for 37% of the variance across 2500 school-children & their parents. Stringer, Hunter et al., 2010
        
        Children acquire prejudice via their parent's implicit cognition, automatic behaviours and educational actions Pirchio et al., 2018.
        
        If a child is beaten or heavily disciplined by their parents, they see the world as threatening or dangerous and seek to have some control over it - so adopt ideologies and prejudices of parents (Authoritarianism) Duckitt, 2001
        
        Peers: Older infants may exhibit increased toy acceptance, prosocial action, and imitative behaviour towards children with shared characteristics as them Buttelmann et al., 2013 e.g. girls playing w/ girls etc.
        
        Education system:
        
        Less racial bias in racially mixed schools (Skinner et al., 2019).
        
        When children have contact with out-group members, prejudice is reduced (Xiao et al., 2015). - If teachers don't like immigrants and show this attitude, children pick up on it and show this negative bias (Vezzali et al., 2012).
        
        Media:
        
        Evidence indicates that exposure to others expressing non-verbal biases can create inter-group biases among young children Skinner et al., 2017.
        
        Vittrup & Holden, 2012 Showed clips of + inter-group interactions and found reduced racial bias. E.g. News, videos on YT, FB, IG - social media & traditional media.
        
        In experiments, if taught out-group is bad & importance of group membership, children will show prejudice towards out-group Brown & Pehrson, 2020.
  - - - Children begin to understand complexities of inclusion & exclusion from an early age Killen & Rutland, 2011
        
        Children have to figure out the conditions for inclusion & exclusion across childhood.
        
        Non-linear (& fluctuating) development of prejudice Killen & Rutland, 2011
        
        Must first understand children's ability to categorise - to be prejudiced, must first recognise as different from one's own group (comparison) Reicher, 2004
        
        Inter-group behaviour starts when one starts with social identification of one's group Reicher, 2004