Understanding and Effective Application of Social Psychology - Essay Example

Running Head: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Understanding and Application of Knowledge in the area of Social Psychology Name Institution Understanding and Application of Knowledge in the area of Social Psychology Social psychology is considered to be a field of knowledge created by the overlapping fields of sociology and psychology. Professionals within both sociology and psychology tend to adopt different approaches to social psychology. Psychologists hold the view that the individual influences society, while sociologists take the opposing view, that society influences the individual. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, apart from being a controversial area of study, knowledge in the area of social psychology can contribute towards the solving of social problems in the real world, provided it is properly understood and applied. One example which demonstrates the effective use of social psychology is the concept of stereotypes. Stereotypes are simplified evaluations of social groups and their members, based on (usually externally visible) characteristics such as gender, age, nationality and so on. These characterizations are either of a positive or negative nature and they tend to be widely shared, especially by members of a particular social, political, economic or ethnic group (Myers, 2008). According to the author, “Stereotypes are often based on observable characteristics such as appearance, personality traits, typical interests and aspirations, and preferred activities and occupations.” Some stereotypes are factual, some stereotypes are exaggerations of fact, while other stereotypes are complete fabrications. The risk of using stereotypes is that they are simplifications of reality and generalizations about the assumed characteristics of groups. Therefore, stereotypes do not necessarily predict the actual characteristics or behaviour of any member of stereotyped groups. However, it is important to note that many stereotypes are adopted early in life, before a child has independent knowledge and/or experience of the groups they refer to. Unfortunately, stereotypes are usually more hostile in the presence of social tensions and conflict between groups, and they are often a cause and/or effect of prejudice and discrimination. In a nutshell, Moghaddam (1998) states that stereotyping happens when any member of a social group is presumed to have the same characteristics as other members of the group, despite any actual differences between members of that social group. According to this author, stereotyping is not inherently wrong, as it is not always an intentional act of abuse. Nevertheless, the author acknowledges that stereotypes held about groups which are minorities or considered to be subordinate are commonly negative. . Some stereotypes are acquired through personal experience with members of the stereotyped group, but such stereotypes are vulnerable to bias due to differences in perception between members of different groups. It is not uncommon for the behaviour of one member of a group at a particular time to be interpreted as the standard behaviour of all other group members all the time. Other stereotypes exist as the result of an individual’s interactions with family, friends and the media. These interactions operate to fortify stereotypes, because individuals are constantly bombarded with simplified generalizations about other groups, and so stereotypes become strongly implanted into social norms. In addition, the media contributes towards the reinforcement of prevalent stereotypes, as media practitioners also believe in many stereotypes. One consequence of stereotyping is that it exaggerates differences between the target group (referred to as the out-group) and the group which is doing the stereotyping (the in-group). This happens when there is both overestimation of apparent similarities among people in one group and overestimation of differences between people from different groups, by using stereotypes as a yardstick. For example, stereotypical definitions of young and old people may overstate the characteristics of the young as interesting, noisy and up-to-date and the characteristics of the old as boring, quiet and out-of-touch. Stereotyping is an important influence in the behaviour between groups. Indeed, it has led to the development of social identity theory, which is a popular theory in social psychology. The social identity theory argues that membership of social groups provides individuals with a social identity, and that individuals seek a positive social identity by comparing their group (the in-group) with the groups of others (out-groups) as articulated by Hogg & Vaughan (2008). A practical application of the social identity theory is to be found in the behaviour of sports fans in relation to their teams. Hogg & Vaughan (2008) analyze the theory by suggesting that individual identities are connected to group membership. They state that Social identity theory is an explanation of relations between groups, processes within groups and the status of the individual in a group. Thus identity is a function of the value and emotional attachment that individuals place on a particular group membership, such as a fan group of a sports team (Anderson, 1979). In addition, every member of a group makes an effort to enhance his social identity, which is determined as a function of the individual’s self perception in relation to other people, both within and outside the group. However, one weakness of using the social identity theory to explain stereotypes is that an individual can simultaneously be a member of many different groups, e.g. an ethnic/racial group, a socioeconomic class, an educational institution and a fan of a sports team. This means that a person is likely to have a social identity for each group, in which the specific group that a person is interacting with at any given time dictates that person’s current social identity. Furthermore, the social identity theory can be extrapolated to show that individuals have higher opinions of their in-group than their opinions of out-groups, which reinforces their individual self-image when they join a group. This shows that the social identity theory cannot be used to explain stereotypes about fixed groups, i.e. groups whose membership is permanent and immutable, such as ethnic and racial groups. Social psychology is also used to understand the behaviour of individuals within social settings. A particularly interesting subject within social psychology is the phenomenon of helping behaviour, or altruism. Social psychologists are interested in the factors that influence human beings to act unselfishly in the interests of others. Many studies associate altruism with empathy, where we feel pain when we see someone in distress and relief when that person’s suffering is alleviated. Another possible explanation under evolutionary psychology, proposed by Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett (2002) is that some forms of altruism promote survival of individuals and by extension, survival of the species, thereby helping to perpetuate our genes. Caring for children is the most pertinent example of this. In support of this evolutionary explanation of altruism is the fact that orphaned children are more likely to be taken care of by people with similar genes, namely blood relatives, and that in emergencies, people try to save other people who are most closely related to them. Despite these findings on altruism, social psychologists have noted that there are certain social circumstances in which altruism is more likely to be practiced than others. According to Darley and Latane (1968), bystanders will intervene to help another person only if they interpret an incident as an emergency and assume responsibility for taking action, if they know the appropriate action to take, and actually decide to take that action. Such altruism is affected by social factors, the key one being the presence of other people, which can deter an individual from offering help at any stage of the intervention process. Thus social psychologists have concluded – based on the available evidence – that an individual in a group is less likely to interpret an unusual situation as an emergency, than a solitary individual who is surrounded by other people. They have also concluded that when people believe that another person’s distress has been brought to the awareness of other people, then responsibility to take action in order to help is distributed or diffused across the group. This means that a single individual is more likely to help when he/she believes that they bear sole responsibility for taking action in a crisis (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). This phenomenon, in which altruistic action is either paralyzed or encouraged by the presence or absence of other people, respectively, is known as the bystander effect. It has been manifested in a variety of situations, including emergency phone calls to help strangers, returning dropped or lost property, aiding a lost child, and blood donation (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). In relation to giving money to a beggar, it has also been referred to as ‘the guilt of giving’. The bystander effect apparently involves two separate processes, namely pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility. Pluralistic ignorance happens when witnesses to an event conclude that nothing is wrong because other witnesses apparently do not perceive a problem. Pluralistic ignorance underlines the social nature of much human behaviour – people use the actions of others as a guide to determine what correct behaviour is in a particular context. This is as true both of emergency situations and of other, more common situations. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when an individual feels less responsibility to take action in inverse proportion to the number of bystanders present. When people believe their responsibility to act is shared with others, they feel less personal responsibility to act. This is neatly summarized by a hypothetical situation involving three parties, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. Somebody sees a situation, and recognizes that action should be taken to rectify it, but decides that Anybody can take action, and eventually Nobody does. This scenario is brought home most forcefully by the 1964 murder of a young woman named Kitty Genovese in New York City. A number of neighbours heard her screams for help and turned on their lights, but nobody called the police until considerably later, by which time Kitty was dead. In order to understand (and possibly prevent) such situations, social psychology has to be applied to explain why people behave the way they do in such circumstances. Another practical application of social psychology is in improving relations between citizens and police. Wollman (1977) has studied this issue at length, and has used helping behaviour (altruism) to explain how citizen’s attitudes towards the police can be changed for the better. Wollman (1977) states that the police need help from citizens in combating crime. However, he also notes that the likelihood of citizens helping the police varies according to a number of factors. Citing Berkowitz (1973) he lists the factors which influence helping behaviour as moral norms, individual moods, rewards and models. Each of these may influence helping behaviour for better or worse. Moral norms which affect citizens’ helping behaviour are reciprocity, where we feel we should help those who help us, and social responsibility, where we feel we have a duty to provide help. Moods also influence helping behaviour, as we are more likely to help others when we are in a good mood, when we are feeling guilty about something, or when we empathize with a person in distress. People are also more likely to offer help when they see someone else offering help. Wollman (1977) states that role playing between members of the public and police officers has been used in the United States to evoke empathy for the police, and thus to encourage more helping behaviour from citizens. The author claims that such role plays have been successful in real life, citing examples of the city of Syracuse (Parker, 1974) and the prevention of riots in Houston in June 1968 (Sikes, 1969). Finally, feelings of empathy can be aroused by encouraging self disclosure by police officers, which should also promote helping behaviour. As mentioned above, guilt is another mood which can be employed to encourage more helping behaviour from the citizens. Wollman (1973) proposes that the best way to instill guilt in citizens in relation to their dealings with the police is the use of a media campaign. The campaign would emphasize the responsibility of citizens to help the police, and then create a sense of guilt if that responsibility is not fulfilled. Such tactics are common in other campaigns to encourage helping behaviour, such as aid appeals during natural disasters. However it should be noted that some people react negatively to such guilt-inducing campaigns, perceiving them as a form of ‘emotional blackmail.’ The concept of reward is also used to encourage members of the public to assist the police. This is fairly common in high-profile criminal cases, where the police offer large sums of cash in return for information that will lead to the arrest of certain wanted individuals. However, such large rewards are few and far between. In relation to helping the police with other activities, rewards are not usually seen as a method of encouraging helpful behaviour. Nevertheless, Wollman (1977) insists that citizens are more likely to help the police if they believe that their action will bring praise or material benefits. Finally, the idea that people are more likely to help if they see someone else helping (modeling behaviour) can also be used to help the police to combat crime. Wollman suggests that demonstrations of citizens helping the police can be emphasized in media reports, but that direct observation of one’s own community members helping the police would be more effective in encouraging helping behaviour towards the police, and thus in fighting crime. One major obstacle in using modeling behaviour in encouraging helping behaviour towards the police is the fact that certain communities may have ingrained hostility towards the police. This is particularly true of neighbourhoods with high crime rates. In such areas, citizens are unlikely to cooperate with the police, regardless of approaches used to encourage helping behaviour. In fact, any individual who displays helping behaviour towards the police is likely to be labeled as a traitor by his in-group, the community. Wollman (1977) is aware of this limitation to his proposed methods of facilitating altruism towards the police. In fact, the police themselves may not be very enthusiastic about such programs. In order to overcome these limitations, Wollman proposes that police officers should live within the areas in which they work. This will have the benefit of integrating the police officers into the community, which will eliminate the in-group, out-group dichotomy between the police and the community, and also eliminate the stereotypes between the groups. Therefore there are plenty of reasons for the police to use practical applications of social psychology to improve their relations with the public and to combat crime. References Anderson, D. (1979). Sports spectatorship: an appropriation of identity or appraisal of self? Review of Sport and Leisure 4, 115-127. Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. & Lycett, J. (2002). Human Evolutionary Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Berkowitz, L. (1973). Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press Darley, J.M. &. Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (8),377–83. Hogg, M.A., & Vaughan G.M. (2008). Social psychology, fifth edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Moghaddam, F.M. (1998) Social psychology: Exploring universals across cultures. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Myers, D. (2008). Social psychology, ninth edition. Boston/London: McGraw-Hill. Parker, G.M. (1974). Human relations training. Training and Developmental Journal, 28 (10), 7- 12. Sikes, M.P. (1969). Police-community relations: The Houston experience. In J.R. Snibble & H.M. Snibble (Eds.), The urban policeman in transition, 187-200. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Wollman, N. (1977). applications of social psychology in police-community relations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Police and Criminal Psychology (Nashville, Tennessee). Read More