Hi all, the topic I chose for my second blog is about self enhancement by social comparison. I chose this topic because I think I frequently engage in it regarding school work. That is, I feel better about a grade I got when I compare myself to someone who got a grade less than mine, and as mean as it is it makes me feel better about the grade. Unfortunately I do the opposite of this much more. Often I will get a grade that I am really happy with but as soon as I hear of others grades that were better than mine, I automatically feel that my grade wasn’t that great. I realised just how much I was doing this last semester and I came to the conclusion that everyone has different circumstances and the only person I should be comparing myself to, is me! So if I look back at the work I produced in first year then I the grades I am getting now and the work I am producing now I see that I am definitely improving. This is good in theory, however I still find myself engaging in social comparisons. I was just wondering if anyone else finds they do this? Some people I have talked to say they don’t so I thought I would see where everyone else is at.
Thanks rach.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination in the modern world
Prejudice and Discrimination are closely related concepts, and the terms have become almost interchangeable in popular use. Social scientists, however, prefer to define the terms precisely. Crandall, Eshleman and O’Brien (2002) define prejudice as a negative evaluation of a group or of an individual on the sole basis of group membership. Discrimination is defined as the unequal treatment of different people based on the groups or categories to which they belong (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
Tired of witnessing discrimination and prejudicial attitudes, in 1968 American third grade teacher Jane Elliot trialed an experiment she had been thinking of for some time. The experiment segregated the children of her classroom based on eye colour. Children with brown eyes were the first group to experience being the ‘inferior’ group with the blue eyed children being ‘on top’. The following day the groups were reversed (Frontline, 1985). Today Jane Elliot is widely known and has carried out the experiment in many countries working mainly with adults. ‘Australian eye’ was one of Elliot’s seminars carried out in 2002 in Sydney, Australia. In this seminar the brown-eyed participants were ‘on top’ and the blue eyed participants were ‘inferior’. This gave minority groups such as Aboriginals a chance to voice their opinions and experience feelings of power, control and superiority. The seminar also gave blue eyed participants a chance to experience what it is like to be in a minority group. This was shown when one of the blue eyed participants nicknamed by Elliot as ‘Blondie’ made the comment “I have to conform to the way you want me to be, and not who I am” Elliot responded with “and what does that teach you?” Blondie replied “that I’m significant”. This comment had many of the brown-eyed participants who were looking on nodding as if to show that is how they feel everyday and not just when in a seminar.
In recent years people’s willingness to express prejudice has continued to decrease, attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities as measured in surveys are becoming increasingly positive and less prejudiced (Crandall, Eshleman and O’Brien, 2002). However is prejudice really on the decline, or is it just changing its representation from overt prejudice to covert? Interpersonal or covert discrimination is subtle and therefore difficult to identify, assess, and eradicate. Contemporary discrimination research contends that although the incidence of major discriminatory acts and overtly prejudiced attitudes have dropped considerably, these actions and attitudes have been supplanted by everyday discrimination or more covert forms of prejudice that manifest in subtle, indirect discriminatory behaviours. Researchers suggest that socials norms and political correctness concerns have motivated this shift in the way prejudice and discrimination is expressed (King et al, 2006). The justification–suppression model proposes that genuine prejudice is followed either by justification or suppression factors leading an individual to (or not to) express this prejudice. According to the justification–suppression model, removing a perceiver’s justification for expressing prejudice should reduce the likelihood of discrimination. In response to this model, researchers have begun to develop measures of subtle discrimination and implicit prejudice, such as the Implicit Associations Test, priming measures, and measures of interpersonal nonverbal behaviours such as social distance, facial expressions, eye contact, eye blinking, and smiling. Nonverbal behaviours have received considerable attention because of their tendency to leak out and influence interaction. Kings findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing interpersonal discrimination should target individuals’ justifications for prejudices
Reducing prejudice
Plant and Devine (1998) argue that there are two main reasons for wanting to overcome prejudice. First is those internally motivated this refers to one’s dedication to equality and the belief that to be prejudiced is morally wrong. The other is those externally motivated where the individual is not motivated by a sincere change in their personal attitude; rather they are motivated by societal pressures and wanting to avoid social disapproval.
A study conducted by Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz (1998) showed that people hold prejudiced attitudes towards particular social groups at the implicit or unconscious level, even though they honestly report having no prejudiced attitudes at the explicit or conscious level. To combat this attitude one must identify and consciously override their prejudice.
Contact hypothesis.
The contact hypothesis predicts that cooperative interaction with members of a disliked group
results in increased liking for those members and generalizes to more positive attitudes toward thegroup (Desforges et al 1991). Amir (1969) discusses the favourable conditions which tend to reduce prejudice through the contact hypothesis. These are (a) when there is equal status contact between the members of the various ethnic groups, (b) the contact must be positive, and (c) the out-group members must be perceived as being typical for their group. A meta-analytic review conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) concluded that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. The authors also add that the meta-analytic findings indicate these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Therefore it is suggested that future work should also look at negative factors that prevent intergroup contact
Vicarious contact
Vicarious contact or the extended contact hypothesis proposes that the knowledge of an in-group member having a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. A study showed participants experienced less negative out-group attitudes when observing an apparent in-group-out-group friendship (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997)
Covert expressions of prejudice
Overt forms of prejudice can be reduced through traditional techniques such as direct educational and attitude change techniques. Contemporary or covert expressions of prejudice however may require alternative strategies orientated towards the individual or involving inter group contact. Individual-orientated techniques can involve leading people to discover inconsistencies among their self-images, behaviours and values. Such inconsistencies can arouse negative emotional states (such as guilt) which motivate the development for more favourable attitudes. Intergroup strategies can involve structuring intergroup contact to produce more individualised perceptions of members of the other group. Showing inter-group contact can be effective in reducing covert expressions of prejudice also (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999). Although automatically activated covert prejudice (e.g., eye contact, body posture, and speech errors) can bias behaviour, this effect is not obligatory. It depends on how aware people are of the possibility of bias, how motivated they are to correct potential bias, and how much control they have over their judgment or behaviour (Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006). In the documentary Australian Eye Jane Elliot states white people have certain freedoms. The first she says is “the freedom to be ignorant of people who are different from themselves”. The second is “the freedom to deny we’re ignorant”. In the case of covert prejudice Elliot’s point on ‘white freedoms’ implies one can choose to not be aware of biases they poses and have no desire, intention or motivation to become aware.
Discrimination in reverse
Discrimination in reverse is another technique known to reduce individual’s prejudicial attitudes and behaviours. A study conducted by Dutton and Lakes (1973) showed simply accusing someone of being prejudiced can cause them to exert themselves to prove the opposite. The authors define this ‘reverse discrimination’ as an attempt by a person who thinks racial prejudice is undesirable and who is threatened by the possibility that they themselves might be prejudiced to prove to themselves through their behaviour that they in fact are not prejudiced.
Superordinate goals
The interdependent learning environment developed to encourage cooperation is known as the jigsaw classroom. This technique has shown a decrease in racial prejudice, an increase in academic performance, and an increase in their belief that participants could learn from other group members. This study emphasises the power of superordinate goals in reducing prejudice (Aronson & Osherow, 1980).
Of all human weaknesses, none is more destructive of the dignity of the individual and the social bonds of humanity than prejudice. According to a variety of investigators, modern prejudice and discrimination has merely become more subtle. Many people carefully avoid overt expressions of prejudicial attitudes but covertly continue to harbour negative views of racial minorities (Dovitio & Gaertner, 1999). Through optimal contact, the conscious decision to override prejudice attitudes, vicarious contact, or education attitudes can be changed. The techniques of discrimination in reverse or the use of superordinate goals also help reduce prejudice and discrimination. The final comment made in Australian Eye by an Aboriginal man sums up the need for individuals to act on attitudes of prejudice and discrimination, “If we do nothing, nothing will change!”.
Appendices:
References
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-342.
Aronson, E., & Osherow, N. (1980). Cooperation, prosocial behaviour, and academic performance: Experiments in the desegregated classroom. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 163-196.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Cullen, P. (2002). Jane Elliot’s Australian Eye. Annamax Media Pty Ltd.
Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359-378.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999) Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101-105.
Dusgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behaviour: the moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioural control. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 91, 268-280.
Dutton, D. G., & Lake, R. A. (1973). Threat of own prejudice and reverse discrimination in interracial situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 94-100.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: a mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579-593.
Peters, W. (1985). Frontline: A class divided. Retrieved September 1, 2007, Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/credits.html
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Plant, E. A., & Devine , P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90.
Readability
The readability of my blog was measured at 47.6 on the Flesch Reading Ease (this is within the recommended range of 42 or above) and 11.1 on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (this is within the recommended range of 12 or below). This was calculated by using Microsoft Word’s Readability Statistics function. The essay has headings structured throughout to make the content easier to follow. The text is all the same size and colour (standard APA, times new roman font, in black, font size 10) this is done to enhance the readability of the blog. The concept map is improved by adding colour to the boxes enhancing the overall appeal of the chart. The concept map has been kept simple so the main points are clear and one can obtain the overall general idea of the topic quickly without becoming overloaded.
Self AssessmentTheory
I feel my blog covered the many approaches and models used when looking at reducing prejudice and discrimination. Additionally I feel appropriate definitions of all terms and concepts were listed to ensure appropriate depth and understanding to all readers. The theories were linked to the documentary ‘Australian Eye’ where relevant.Written expression
A readability analysis is provided as one of the appendix links. The APA style of the paper is moderate. I am not sure if my use of headings is correct formal APA style and the essay has not been double spaced. However the font is correct APA style as is the reference list. I have tried to make the essay and each section flow as well as possible without using up too many words (due to the word limit). I feel if an essay flows well it is much more enjoyable to read.
Research
In the lead up to writing this essay I was very thorough in my reading and research so as to obtain the most comprehensive results. There were many articles that I read that I did not end up using as references however they worked very well as background reading.
Online Engagement
I have been reasonably active in my online engagement. The technical aspect was very difficult for me to grasp at first however perseverance paid off. My first blog was aimed at providing readers with information that I had researched and found interesting. The rest of my blogs were primarily written for readers to view my opinions and aspects about specific topics. I have made comments on others blogs and aimed to partake in surveys and quizzes other students had listed on their blogs. I feel had I been more competent and skilled at using online resources I may have been able to comfortable engage in posting blogs earlier, however I still feel I made a valuable contribution. In future I plan to make time to try and read and comment on more blogs, as well as do more research on interesting areas for the benefit of readers.
Tired of witnessing discrimination and prejudicial attitudes, in 1968 American third grade teacher Jane Elliot trialed an experiment she had been thinking of for some time. The experiment segregated the children of her classroom based on eye colour. Children with brown eyes were the first group to experience being the ‘inferior’ group with the blue eyed children being ‘on top’. The following day the groups were reversed (Frontline, 1985). Today Jane Elliot is widely known and has carried out the experiment in many countries working mainly with adults. ‘Australian eye’ was one of Elliot’s seminars carried out in 2002 in Sydney, Australia. In this seminar the brown-eyed participants were ‘on top’ and the blue eyed participants were ‘inferior’. This gave minority groups such as Aboriginals a chance to voice their opinions and experience feelings of power, control and superiority. The seminar also gave blue eyed participants a chance to experience what it is like to be in a minority group. This was shown when one of the blue eyed participants nicknamed by Elliot as ‘Blondie’ made the comment “I have to conform to the way you want me to be, and not who I am” Elliot responded with “and what does that teach you?” Blondie replied “that I’m significant”. This comment had many of the brown-eyed participants who were looking on nodding as if to show that is how they feel everyday and not just when in a seminar.
In recent years people’s willingness to express prejudice has continued to decrease, attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities as measured in surveys are becoming increasingly positive and less prejudiced (Crandall, Eshleman and O’Brien, 2002). However is prejudice really on the decline, or is it just changing its representation from overt prejudice to covert? Interpersonal or covert discrimination is subtle and therefore difficult to identify, assess, and eradicate. Contemporary discrimination research contends that although the incidence of major discriminatory acts and overtly prejudiced attitudes have dropped considerably, these actions and attitudes have been supplanted by everyday discrimination or more covert forms of prejudice that manifest in subtle, indirect discriminatory behaviours. Researchers suggest that socials norms and political correctness concerns have motivated this shift in the way prejudice and discrimination is expressed (King et al, 2006). The justification–suppression model proposes that genuine prejudice is followed either by justification or suppression factors leading an individual to (or not to) express this prejudice. According to the justification–suppression model, removing a perceiver’s justification for expressing prejudice should reduce the likelihood of discrimination. In response to this model, researchers have begun to develop measures of subtle discrimination and implicit prejudice, such as the Implicit Associations Test, priming measures, and measures of interpersonal nonverbal behaviours such as social distance, facial expressions, eye contact, eye blinking, and smiling. Nonverbal behaviours have received considerable attention because of their tendency to leak out and influence interaction. Kings findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing interpersonal discrimination should target individuals’ justifications for prejudices
Reducing prejudice
Plant and Devine (1998) argue that there are two main reasons for wanting to overcome prejudice. First is those internally motivated this refers to one’s dedication to equality and the belief that to be prejudiced is morally wrong. The other is those externally motivated where the individual is not motivated by a sincere change in their personal attitude; rather they are motivated by societal pressures and wanting to avoid social disapproval.
A study conducted by Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz (1998) showed that people hold prejudiced attitudes towards particular social groups at the implicit or unconscious level, even though they honestly report having no prejudiced attitudes at the explicit or conscious level. To combat this attitude one must identify and consciously override their prejudice.
Contact hypothesis.
The contact hypothesis predicts that cooperative interaction with members of a disliked group
results in increased liking for those members and generalizes to more positive attitudes toward thegroup (Desforges et al 1991). Amir (1969) discusses the favourable conditions which tend to reduce prejudice through the contact hypothesis. These are (a) when there is equal status contact between the members of the various ethnic groups, (b) the contact must be positive, and (c) the out-group members must be perceived as being typical for their group. A meta-analytic review conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) concluded that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. The authors also add that the meta-analytic findings indicate these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Therefore it is suggested that future work should also look at negative factors that prevent intergroup contact
Vicarious contact
Vicarious contact or the extended contact hypothesis proposes that the knowledge of an in-group member having a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. A study showed participants experienced less negative out-group attitudes when observing an apparent in-group-out-group friendship (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997)
Covert expressions of prejudice
Overt forms of prejudice can be reduced through traditional techniques such as direct educational and attitude change techniques. Contemporary or covert expressions of prejudice however may require alternative strategies orientated towards the individual or involving inter group contact. Individual-orientated techniques can involve leading people to discover inconsistencies among their self-images, behaviours and values. Such inconsistencies can arouse negative emotional states (such as guilt) which motivate the development for more favourable attitudes. Intergroup strategies can involve structuring intergroup contact to produce more individualised perceptions of members of the other group. Showing inter-group contact can be effective in reducing covert expressions of prejudice also (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999). Although automatically activated covert prejudice (e.g., eye contact, body posture, and speech errors) can bias behaviour, this effect is not obligatory. It depends on how aware people are of the possibility of bias, how motivated they are to correct potential bias, and how much control they have over their judgment or behaviour (Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006). In the documentary Australian Eye Jane Elliot states white people have certain freedoms. The first she says is “the freedom to be ignorant of people who are different from themselves”. The second is “the freedom to deny we’re ignorant”. In the case of covert prejudice Elliot’s point on ‘white freedoms’ implies one can choose to not be aware of biases they poses and have no desire, intention or motivation to become aware.
Discrimination in reverse
Discrimination in reverse is another technique known to reduce individual’s prejudicial attitudes and behaviours. A study conducted by Dutton and Lakes (1973) showed simply accusing someone of being prejudiced can cause them to exert themselves to prove the opposite. The authors define this ‘reverse discrimination’ as an attempt by a person who thinks racial prejudice is undesirable and who is threatened by the possibility that they themselves might be prejudiced to prove to themselves through their behaviour that they in fact are not prejudiced.
Superordinate goals
The interdependent learning environment developed to encourage cooperation is known as the jigsaw classroom. This technique has shown a decrease in racial prejudice, an increase in academic performance, and an increase in their belief that participants could learn from other group members. This study emphasises the power of superordinate goals in reducing prejudice (Aronson & Osherow, 1980).
Of all human weaknesses, none is more destructive of the dignity of the individual and the social bonds of humanity than prejudice. According to a variety of investigators, modern prejudice and discrimination has merely become more subtle. Many people carefully avoid overt expressions of prejudicial attitudes but covertly continue to harbour negative views of racial minorities (Dovitio & Gaertner, 1999). Through optimal contact, the conscious decision to override prejudice attitudes, vicarious contact, or education attitudes can be changed. The techniques of discrimination in reverse or the use of superordinate goals also help reduce prejudice and discrimination. The final comment made in Australian Eye by an Aboriginal man sums up the need for individuals to act on attitudes of prejudice and discrimination, “If we do nothing, nothing will change!”.
Appendices:
References
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-342.
Aronson, E., & Osherow, N. (1980). Cooperation, prosocial behaviour, and academic performance: Experiments in the desegregated classroom. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 163-196.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Cullen, P. (2002). Jane Elliot’s Australian Eye. Annamax Media Pty Ltd.
Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359-378.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999) Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101-105.
Dusgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behaviour: the moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioural control. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 91, 268-280.
Dutton, D. G., & Lake, R. A. (1973). Threat of own prejudice and reverse discrimination in interracial situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 94-100.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: a mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579-593.
Peters, W. (1985). Frontline: A class divided. Retrieved September 1, 2007, Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/credits.html
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Plant, E. A., & Devine , P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90.
Readability
The readability of my blog was measured at 47.6 on the Flesch Reading Ease (this is within the recommended range of 42 or above) and 11.1 on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (this is within the recommended range of 12 or below). This was calculated by using Microsoft Word’s Readability Statistics function. The essay has headings structured throughout to make the content easier to follow. The text is all the same size and colour (standard APA, times new roman font, in black, font size 10) this is done to enhance the readability of the blog. The concept map is improved by adding colour to the boxes enhancing the overall appeal of the chart. The concept map has been kept simple so the main points are clear and one can obtain the overall general idea of the topic quickly without becoming overloaded.
Self AssessmentTheory
I feel my blog covered the many approaches and models used when looking at reducing prejudice and discrimination. Additionally I feel appropriate definitions of all terms and concepts were listed to ensure appropriate depth and understanding to all readers. The theories were linked to the documentary ‘Australian Eye’ where relevant.Written expression
A readability analysis is provided as one of the appendix links. The APA style of the paper is moderate. I am not sure if my use of headings is correct formal APA style and the essay has not been double spaced. However the font is correct APA style as is the reference list. I have tried to make the essay and each section flow as well as possible without using up too many words (due to the word limit). I feel if an essay flows well it is much more enjoyable to read.
Research
In the lead up to writing this essay I was very thorough in my reading and research so as to obtain the most comprehensive results. There were many articles that I read that I did not end up using as references however they worked very well as background reading.
Online Engagement
I have been reasonably active in my online engagement. The technical aspect was very difficult for me to grasp at first however perseverance paid off. My first blog was aimed at providing readers with information that I had researched and found interesting. The rest of my blogs were primarily written for readers to view my opinions and aspects about specific topics. I have made comments on others blogs and aimed to partake in surveys and quizzes other students had listed on their blogs. I feel had I been more competent and skilled at using online resources I may have been able to comfortable engage in posting blogs earlier, however I still feel I made a valuable contribution. In future I plan to make time to try and read and comment on more blogs, as well as do more research on interesting areas for the benefit of readers.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Aversive racism
Hi all, I'm finally getting used to this 'blogging' concept and have a few more thoughts to share. Firstly i've finally made up my mind regarding the assessable blog and i'm going to do #7 on reducing prejudice. Ive been reading and researching for a while and this topic seems to keep grabbing by attention the most. One of the biggest problems as far as I can see is Aversive racists, who simultaneously hold egalitarian values and at the same time negative feelings towards minorities. The problem here is you may be one, as an aversive racist truely believes in racial equality and equal opportunities, yet feel uncomfortable around minorities and may even avoid them where possible. So how can one change their negative views about minorities if they aren't even aware that they have them. I think it requires alot of time and conscious effort, as you must truely look at yourself and reflect on all the situations you choose to put yourself in (or choose to not put yourself in). It is easy to preech equal opportunities and then just subconsciously make sure your not exposed to any minoritity groups. So the biggest problem seems to be if you believe that your not racist in any way, why would you find it necessary to question yourself in the first place?..... I guess this is one reason why the cycle continues.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Labels in Psychology, Friend or Foe?
Hi Fiona in responce to your blog I had some opinions on this issue I wanted to express. I also attended the guest lecture presented by Pilgrim and I do agree with your side of the argument and the negative connotations that labelling someone with a mental illness can have. However I have to say that sometimes it can have very positive effects to belong to a group or to simply be able to put a name to it. A relative of mine suffered (undiagnosed) with bipolar for nearly ten years and had reached a stage where he felt he no longer knew who he was. It was amazing to see the relief he gained simply by knowing what he had. By gaining the title of bipolar he was able to research and find so many other people were just like him with very similar symptoms. Having said that I have also experienced the negative problems that can come about from being labelled. I'm sure at some point in our lives we have all heard people being described as a 'psycho' or a 'schizo' in reference to their mental illness. A friend of mine who was open about his diagnosis faced isolation from many people he had considered friends. I guess that comes down to stereotypes, ignorance and the stigma attached to the labels of mental illness. Unfortunately I think this topic has no easy clear-cut answer. However I think David Pilgrims views were very interesting and made me question the oh so holy DSM. I think as time goes on this debate of labelling will develop more and more.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Where Jane Elliot began
Hi all I’ve finally figured out how to post a blog (yay!). After viewing the video in the tute on Jane Elliot’s blue eye brown eye experiment in Australia I thought I’d share with everyone the history of this experiment and where Jane Elliot began…
‘The Blue eyes, Brown eyes’ exercise, was originally created by third grade teacher Jane Elliott. In April 1968 the day after martin Luther king was shot, Elliott decided to try out the experiment that she had had in her head for some time. Martin Luther King had recently been labelled their class ‘hero’ of the month. Elliott knew her class would have many questions, one student asked "They shot a king Ms Elliott, why would they shoot a king?" There was no way Elliott could explain to third graders why King had been assassinated, so she decided to show them. She began the class that day with a discussion, she asked the children to think about all the people across America. She said of all those people, who do you think is treated differently or unfairly? The children responded with, ‘Blacks’ All these children lived in Riceville, Iowa a small Christian ‘All White’ community. None of the students had ever met a black person, so she asked them what they knew about black people. The children replied ‘They’re dirty, They steal, They stink, You can’t trust them!" Elliott asked if they thought it was fair they are treated badly because of their skin colour? They replied no and with that Elliott proposed they try an experiment to see how it feels to be so mistreated.
As the children all had the same colour skin, she divided them by another factor by which they have no control over, eye colour. On the first day the blue eye students were ‘on top’ they were given many privileges, the brown eye students had all their rights taken away. They weren’t allowed to drink from the water fountain, had a shorter recess, and weren’t allowed second helpings at lunch, they were given rules that enforced their second class status and were made to wear collars (The same as the green ones the Adults wore in the DVD we just watched) to show to everyone clearly they were ‘Brown Eye’ children. The brown eyes were called inferior, lazy, stupid, and made to feel like lesser human beings. Children who played together as friends the day before now would tease and ridicule because one had brown eyes. Two boys had a physical fight because a blue eye boy, insulted the other boy by calling him ‘ Brown eyes’.
The following day Elliott announced there had been a mistake and the Brown eyed students were in fact the superior students. She told the Brown eyed students to take off the collars they were wearing and put them on a blue eyed student. The brown eye students, who had the day before been quiet, withdrawn, sullen, and angry, were now happy, acting superior, confident and domineering. The way the students behaved, proved to Elliott that prejudice is a learned attitude.
On the day the Brown eyes were on top, it took the Blue eye children four minutes and twenty seconds to complete a visual card pack. The day they were on top however it took only three minutes. The day the Blue eyes were on top, it took the brown eyed children five and a half minutes to get through the card pack, yet again on the day they were on top it took only two and a half minutes.
The only thing that had changed each time was depending on the day they had been told they were either superior, or inferior people. Elliott asked the students why did it take you so long when you were wearing the collar? The children’s response was, we weren’t as smart and couldn’t think as well with the collars on.
At the end of the experiment Elliott asked should the colour of someone’s eyes have anything to do with how we treat them? The children shouted no, then Elliott asked, should their skin? The children strongly shouted no!
Elliott was able to show these children Prejudice and Discrimination, in a way that deeply affected them.
A reunion was held 14 years after the experiment and the children, now adults with their own children said they had carried the lessons they learned those days with them their whole lives, and that their children would never learn racism from them.
Elliott made a sample from her third grade class in 1968, divided them, and watched their behaviour change, their grades alter and even their personalities transform. The results have shown to be very positive, from children with strong racial issues, to children with the ability to have compassion and understanding for all races.
I hope you all found that interesting, isn't it amazing to see what a huge difference one person can make!
‘The Blue eyes, Brown eyes’ exercise, was originally created by third grade teacher Jane Elliott. In April 1968 the day after martin Luther king was shot, Elliott decided to try out the experiment that she had had in her head for some time. Martin Luther King had recently been labelled their class ‘hero’ of the month. Elliott knew her class would have many questions, one student asked "They shot a king Ms Elliott, why would they shoot a king?" There was no way Elliott could explain to third graders why King had been assassinated, so she decided to show them. She began the class that day with a discussion, she asked the children to think about all the people across America. She said of all those people, who do you think is treated differently or unfairly? The children responded with, ‘Blacks’ All these children lived in Riceville, Iowa a small Christian ‘All White’ community. None of the students had ever met a black person, so she asked them what they knew about black people. The children replied ‘They’re dirty, They steal, They stink, You can’t trust them!" Elliott asked if they thought it was fair they are treated badly because of their skin colour? They replied no and with that Elliott proposed they try an experiment to see how it feels to be so mistreated.
As the children all had the same colour skin, she divided them by another factor by which they have no control over, eye colour. On the first day the blue eye students were ‘on top’ they were given many privileges, the brown eye students had all their rights taken away. They weren’t allowed to drink from the water fountain, had a shorter recess, and weren’t allowed second helpings at lunch, they were given rules that enforced their second class status and were made to wear collars (The same as the green ones the Adults wore in the DVD we just watched) to show to everyone clearly they were ‘Brown Eye’ children. The brown eyes were called inferior, lazy, stupid, and made to feel like lesser human beings. Children who played together as friends the day before now would tease and ridicule because one had brown eyes. Two boys had a physical fight because a blue eye boy, insulted the other boy by calling him ‘ Brown eyes’.
The following day Elliott announced there had been a mistake and the Brown eyed students were in fact the superior students. She told the Brown eyed students to take off the collars they were wearing and put them on a blue eyed student. The brown eye students, who had the day before been quiet, withdrawn, sullen, and angry, were now happy, acting superior, confident and domineering. The way the students behaved, proved to Elliott that prejudice is a learned attitude.
On the day the Brown eyes were on top, it took the Blue eye children four minutes and twenty seconds to complete a visual card pack. The day they were on top however it took only three minutes. The day the Blue eyes were on top, it took the brown eyed children five and a half minutes to get through the card pack, yet again on the day they were on top it took only two and a half minutes.
The only thing that had changed each time was depending on the day they had been told they were either superior, or inferior people. Elliott asked the students why did it take you so long when you were wearing the collar? The children’s response was, we weren’t as smart and couldn’t think as well with the collars on.
At the end of the experiment Elliott asked should the colour of someone’s eyes have anything to do with how we treat them? The children shouted no, then Elliott asked, should their skin? The children strongly shouted no!
Elliott was able to show these children Prejudice and Discrimination, in a way that deeply affected them.
A reunion was held 14 years after the experiment and the children, now adults with their own children said they had carried the lessons they learned those days with them their whole lives, and that their children would never learn racism from them.
Elliott made a sample from her third grade class in 1968, divided them, and watched their behaviour change, their grades alter and even their personalities transform. The results have shown to be very positive, from children with strong racial issues, to children with the ability to have compassion and understanding for all races.
I hope you all found that interesting, isn't it amazing to see what a huge difference one person can make!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)