Realistic Conflict Theory - Essay Example

SOCIAL PYSCHOLOGY Name: University: Tutor: Date: Question one Muzafer Sherif has been a major contributor in realistic conflict theory through his experiment which explains negative prejudices, group conflicts and stereotypes which is brought about by competition for limited desired resources. The experiment can be categorised in three phases. The first phase is well known as group formation where twenty-two eleven year old boys are randomly divided into two equal groups and separately taken to a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. This was a bonding period for the groups and in so doing allowed participation in activities such as hiking and swimming. The second phase is described by Vaughn and Hogg (2011) as friction phase where Sherif wanted friction between these groups to occur within 4-6days. This was to be done through competition that would create frustrations. Competitive activities were availed where one group gained at the expense of the other. A serious aggression was witnessed where Rattlers attacked Eagle’s cabin and stole their properties. Due to the tension developing, Sherif introduced the third phase called integration phase. Sherif succeeded in doing this by ensuring that groups can only cooperate to solve a given task due to the inadequate resources availed. A perfect example is when he took them to another location where there was shortage of drinking water and the groups had to cooperate in repairing their water supply. Relating the above experiment to Realistic Conflict Theory, it posits that group of individuals have the tendencies of friction with one another when competition for scarce resources is availed. But if these different groups have a common goal to achieve then they will be solidified and work harmoniously towards such goal. Other than ones provided by Vaughn and Hogg, good examples of this theory can be seen in the waves of immigration to United States. When a new group of immigrants arrives, they are viewed as threat and as a result prejudiced by the other group due to scarce resources such as jobs. Question two The central concepts of Festinger’s theory as argued by Vaughn and Hogg is that an individual has two inconsistent cognitions with one another then such a person is likely to be in a position where s/he is experiencing the pressure of and aversive motivational state. Because Vaughn and Hogg argue that cognitive dissonance may cause an attitude change, such cognitive dissonance should be removed among other available alternatives, altering the two contrasting dissonant cognitions. The theory has been able to stand a test of time due to three assumptions. First, humans will always be sensitive to inconsistencies coming between beliefs and actions. In this case, people are able to recognise at some point, when they are acting in a manner inconsistent with their opinions. In such cases, there will be an in build alarm to alert them on such. The second assumption is that when people recognise such inconsistencies they will be motivated to resolve such. And the greater an individual experiences dissonance, the more they are motivated to resolve such. The third assumption is that dissonance can be altered in three basic ways; changing beliefs, changing actions and changing perception of action. Talking of the third assumption, (Griffin, 2006, p. 234 as cited in Vaughn and Hogg 2011) suggest three alternatives to cognitive dissonance theory. These alternatives are: a. Changing perception of actions To put it in colloquial term, people should rationalise their actions. In other words, we need to think about our actions or actions we are yet to take in a different manner so that it does not become inconsistent with our beliefs. b. Changing actions Vaughn and Hogg believe that guilt and anxiety can be motivators to changing behaviors so altering dissonance theory in this case will involve avoiding repeating actions that are inconsistent with our beliefs. c. Changing beliefs This alternative posits itself on the ground that dissonance can be resolved if we alter our beliefs about certain actions. Question three With regard to explanations of the findings of the research done concerning conformity, Vaughn and Hogg begin their argument by noting that many experiments on normative and informational influence have suggested that our psychological processes are dictated by social influence without differentiating among different kinds of social influence. Looking at the concepts from a popular theory proposed by Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) they define normative social influence as an influence to take information from another source as evidence about reality. In contrast, informational social influence is basically when an individual tend to conform to others behavior because such is expected from them. While the definition states how the two terms differ, it can basically be understood that normative social influence we get from other people and such leads us to conform so that we be accepted or will accomplice with group aspirations, informational social influence on the other hand cares about arriving at the right answer and trying to be rational. While normative social influence results to group pressure due to the fact that an individual wants to fit in a given setup, informational social influence occurs when individual lacks knowledge and as a result tend to consider the group for guidance. One outstanding similarity between normative social influence and informative social influence is that they are both type of social influence that targets a change in belief with an aim of fitting in a group. This change is always in response to real or imagined group pressure. Sherif’s study of group norms is a perfect example of informational social influence. This is because individuals have been designated to use majority as an aid to achieve a form of social comparison. On the other hand, Asch study is normative social influence. Vaughn and Hogg explain that with Asch’s study there is intense pressure for one to suspend own judgment through. Question four Vaughn and Hogg seem to have reached consensus that mere presence of others is enough condition for social interference and social facilitation effects. They define social facilitation as a situation where cognitive and physical performance is enhanced when people are under observation. The power of others to dictate our behavior is readily apparent in issues such as conformity, aggression and competition. Their basic argument is that presence of others is able to create some physiological arousal which in turn heightens the ability of accomplishing dominant responses. When dominant response or a task to be accomplished is easy, the presence of co-actors is likely to improve the performance and when the task is hard then co-actors can make the outcome to suffer. Research such as that of Schachter's (1959) concerning classic studies of affiliation as cited by Vaughn and Hogg (2011) adds that the physiological arousal that can be experienced by individuals in presence or absence of co-actors is evaluation apprehension; meaning that there is usually some social anxiety occurring to such individuals when they are aware that their performance is under normative evaluation. Reasons for the impaired/improved performance a. Physiological mechanisms Physiological mechanisms have it that presence of co-actors is able to elevate activation during performance depending on whether such cognitive activity is well learned or novel. b. Cognitive mechanisms Vaughn and Hogg believe that to understand social facilitation effects based on cognitive mechanisms can be well articulated through distraction-conflict theory. To this theory, presence of others distracts minds by creating cognitive overload thus affecting ‘attentional’ focus. c. Affective mechanisms This explanation posits that presence of co-actors shape behaviors of individuals performing given tasks. It is therefore the anxiety associated with the performer that determines the outcome of the task. Question five While affect has also been used in the literature as a synonym for mood, the main focus of Vaughn and Hogg has been the role of elevated moods on helping. Besides, their research tends to dwell more on moderate moods rather than intensely felt ones. Just like they have presented it, my analysis will focus on social psychology and embark on influence temporary and moderate bad and good mood have on helping. Vaughn and Hogg agree that positive mood triggers or activates helping mechanisms. According to the model the book explains as mood maintenance, positive mood will trigger a unique motive that will push the person to help so that the good mood can be maintained. However, under the same scenario there could be other actions which by the person’s own lights are also conducive for good mood but at the same time less costly; good mood might not necessarily lead to increased helping though. On the other hand, good mood also influence cognitive processing including increased cooperation. Talking of cognitive processes, bad mood will thus lower the ability to help since concomitance model argue that during bad mood, great optimism about future is inhibited and therefore memories about past helping is rarely triggered. This is because when benefits for helping do not outweigh their moods then helping is as good as nothing. Question six In social psychology, this phenomenon is known as familiarity principle. It explains that the more we are exposed to people or objects the more we come to like it even if we had negative attitude towards such people and objects. There are two principles behind mere exposure; the uncertainty reduction and misattribution. Uncertainty reduction works on a two-factor model that allows individuals to reduce uncertainty at a non-conscious level. On one the hand, under this principle, Vaughn and Hogg point that there is tedium and positive habitual that combine to bring about observed effects. Social psychologists have used the above explanation to link mere exposure to attraction. The earliest research conducted by Gustav Fechner and Robert Zajonc has it that exposing subjects to unknown stimulus lead to giving them higher rating than others because of the attraction that can be developed. Subsequent review on researches as explained by Vaughn and Hogg has it that such exposure brings about ambivalence because there are large numbers of association that will come along as a result of our awareness of the person or object. Reference Vaughn, G. M. and Hogg, M. A. (2011). Social psychology (6th Ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.’ Read More