Category Archives: Social Psyched

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 14, 2016

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Pernicious personalities: The real threat of narcissistic leadership

trump

Image from The Independent

Personality traits are often somewhat ambiguous. While it’s good to be agreeable, it’s not good to be TOO agreeable. While it’s good to be conscientious, you can be so conscientious that you never eat that piece of cake or splurge on that great meal. But narcissism, having an overinflated view of the self that leads to a sense of entitlement, self-centeredness and superiority, is pretty clear cut. Narcissism is bad for everyone. Being a narcissist comes with no real long term advantages, though short term advantages might be present. In fact, narcissism is such a bad quality that it’s considered part of the “dark triad” of personality traits, which also includes Machiavellianism (being very manipulative) and psychopathy (being callous and lacking empathy).1 Narcissism is not simply having high self-esteem, it is having a grandiose sense of self that is not grounded in reality.

That description might as well be a description of Donald Trump, former reality star and gold enthusiast and current candidate for the Presidency of the United States. When Donald Trump equates his personal success with the sacrifices of a gold star family, or when he talks about how he alone can fix the problems we face (after all, he knows more about ISIS than the generals and he could deal with thorny issues like illegal immigration and health care during his first 100 days in office), he is displaying a classic example of the narcissistic personality. So why do we care?

Well, psychologists have not only studied how narcissism affects individuals, they have also studied how narcissistic leaders affect their constituency. Jerrold Post has suggested that narcissistic leaders have impaired judgment and decision making.2 Because narcissists tend to think they know best, they are less likely to take criticism or advice from others. This is obviously a terrible leadership quality, as narcissistic leaders are more likely to make uninformed decisions, or to go forward with decisions even once contrary information has come to light. Because narcissists have a grandiose view of themselves, they are more likely to be overly optimistic about the efficacy of their beliefs.2 This problem is compounded by the narcissistic tendency to surround oneself with people who agree with the narcissist.3 In the case of the narcissist, the “best people” to surround himself with are the people who agree with him.

But the problems don’t stop there. Betty Glad finds that narcissistic leaders have an easier time rising to power than they do in actually wielding it.3 Narcissists are charismatic, so it is not surprising that narcissism may sometimes help someone get into a position of power.3 But Glad finds that once that power is attained, narcissists run into some serious problems.3 Oftentimes, narcissists have very bad ideas that cannot be enacted when they don’t have power. But once they do, they are less in touch with reality, more likely to display erratic behavior, have difficulty attaining goals and ultimately become paranoid and defensive.3 And when you surround yourself with people who agree with you, this leads to the perfect storm of malignant narcissistic leadership: Someone who thinks too highly of themselves and their own ideas, running essentially unchecked.

There is one more quality of narcissistic leaders that makes them incredibly dangerous: They have superego deficiencies.3 In other words, narcissistic leaders don’t have a very well developed conscience. The very thing that prompts restraint in our actions, that encourages us to think about how our actions affect others, that tells us to put the brakes on when our ideas are out of control…this basic sense of restraint and morality that children develop early on in life is largely missing from narcissistic leaders. So the next time Donald Trump asks why we can’t use nuclear weapons or vows to deport 11 million people, take him seriously. He has demonstrated that he isn’t a man who can really conceive of the consequences of his actions. But we know better. You cannot declare bankruptcy to get out of nuclear war.

 

  1. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
  1. Post, J.M. (1993). Current concepts of the narcissistic personality: Implications for Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 14(1), 99-121.
  1. Glad, B. (2002). Why tyrants go too far: Malignant narcissism and absolute power. Political Psychology, 23(1), 1-37.

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 4, 2016

Posted under

Psych, Sad World, Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Brock Turner and the Masculine Identity: Perpetuating Rape Culture through Rape Myths

Brock Turner

Image from NY Daily News

On Friday, convicted rapist Brock Turner was released from jail after serving only 3 months of an incredibly lenient 6 month prison sentence for his rape of a woman attending a party. On January 18, 2015, two men witnessed Turner raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and held him until police arrived. Aaron Persky, the judge in the Turner case, decided to give Turner a light sentence, considering that a prison sentence would have a “severe impact” on the rapist (arguably the entire point of a prison sentence…). The case was widely regarded as evidence that rape is not taken seriously in legal proceedings, and that men still have difficulty understanding the significance of sexual assault. While Turner must register as a sex offender, he got the equivalent of a legal slap on the wrist for violently assaulting another person. As a woman, I am angry. But as a psychologist, I am unsurprised. Social psychologists have long known how juror perceptions of rape victims, as well as ideas regarding masculine identities, contribute to cases like Turner’s.

 

Sociologists and psychologists have explored the existence of “rape myths,” or complicated societal beliefs that essentially assert that women are “asking for it.”1 Acceptance of rape myths contributes to rape culture, and casts blame onto the victims of sexual crimes rather than onto the perpetrators. These rape myths are embraced so wholeheartedly that they are often seen in convicted rapists’ speech about their crime.2 Men who have been convicted of rape are more likely to see their crime as ambiguous, such that they believe there is room to interpret their crime as consensual sex.2 A man’s feelings about masculine gender roles also predicts his comfort with sexually coercive behavior, demonstrating that the more that men buy into toxic beliefs about masculinity, the more likely they are to engage in sexual assault.3 While rapists are usually men, rape is still perpetrated by a minority of men, and the men who commit the crime are often seen as social pariahs.4 Indeed, it appears that sex offenders have their own unique qualities. For instance, sex offenders are more likely to lack empathy, or the ability to identify with the experiences and emotions of others, which may contribute to their criminal attitudes.5 This may also explain why some men are comfortable with sexually coercive behavior, while many men are clearly not.

 

Unfortunately, rape victims must also face a biased court system, as the people involved in legal sentencing are likely swayed by their own perceptions of the victim’s behavior. Those perceptions, unbeknownst to jurors, are often created in part by the very rape myths that contributed to the assault in the first place. There is evidence, for instance, that rape victims that were intoxicated at the time of their assaults are less likely to be seen as credible and are more likely to be seen as deserving of rape by jurors.6 Mock jurors were also more likely to have negative evaluations of rape victims when the victim bought the drinks, as opposed to when the perpetrator bought the drinks, something that contributed to feelings of perpetrator guilt.7 This effect is similar to the finding that victims who willingly ingest substances are seen as “more to blame” than victims who ingested substances unwillingly.8 Interestingly enough, it is often a tactic for the rapist to use their own level of intoxication to excuse their actions, suggesting that they would have behaved differently if they had been sober. Research does support this to some degree, finding that the amount of alcohol ingested is positively related to the seriousness of the assault committed.9 Ironically, research also suggests that some men, particularly men who endorse rape myths, are more likely to buy women alcohol as a way of procuring sexual access through intoxication.10

 

Luckily, there are few people who commit these heinous acts, and, to some degree, they can be recognized by their personality traits. The “macho personality” is composed of characteristics like seeing violence as masculine and dangerous situations as thrilling. Men who possess these specific macho traits are more likely to behave violently and gravitate towards violence.11 It’s important to remember that no amount of alcohol can force someone to commit a violent act, even if Brock Turner’s friends and family think differently. It’s also important to consider the bigger picture: how ideas about masculinity and biased perceptions of victims contribute to both the formation of rapists and the perpetuation of rape culture. Rather than focusing on drinking on college campuses, we need to work to dispel rape myths that equate intoxication with sexual invitation.

 

  1. Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.

 

  1. Lea, S. & Auburn, T. (2002). Feminism & Psychology: “The social construction of rape in the talk of a convicted rapist.” Women and Language, 25(2), 58.

 

  1. Truman, D.M., Tokar, D.M., & Fischer, A.R. (1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(6), 555.

 

  1. Lee, P.C. (2003). Reason, rape and angst in behavioral studies. Science, 301(5631), 313.

 

  1. Marshall, W.L., Hudson, S.M., Jones, R., & Fernandez, Y.M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(2), 99-113.

 

  1. Wenger, A.A. & Bornstein, B.H. (2006). The Effects of victim’s substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles, 54(7-8), 547-555.

 

  1. Lynch, K.R., Wasarhaley, N.E., Golding, J.M., & Simcic, T. (2013). Who bought the drinks? Juror Perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3205-3222.

 

  1. Stewert, D.N. & Jacquin, K.M. (2010). Juror perceptions in a rape trial: Examining the complainant’s ingestion of chemical substances prior to sexual assault. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatmen,t & Trauma, 19(8), 853-874.

 

  1. Abbey, A., Clinton-Sherrod, A.M., McAusian, P., Zawacki, T., & Buck, P.O. (2003). The relationships between the quantity of alcohol consumed and the severity of sexual assaults committed by college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 813-833.

 

  1. Sanchez-Romero, M. (2010). Alcohol use as a strategy for obtaining nonconsensual sexual relations: Incidence in Spanish university students and relation to rape myths acceptance. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 864-874.

 

  1. Zaitchik, MC. & Mosher, D.L. (1993). Criminal justice implications of the Macho personality constellation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(3), 227-239.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 9, 2016

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Belief superiority, guns, and faulty data: A recipe for frustration

I’ve been seeing a lot of memes, conversations, and sarcastic comments online lately about gun control, especially with Obama’s latest executive order. The content is usually somewhere along the lines of “We should prohibit guns like we prohibit drugs, because no one does drugs anymore, right?” Which is supposed to be funny and point out the blatant “idiocy” of how making something illegal doesn’t stop people from using it. Get it?

Here’s where I get frustrated. Because do I really have to go into the difference between illegal and regulated and point out that no one is making it illegal for Americans to arm themselves? Do I have to state the fact that expanding regulations would ensure that people with violent backgrounds can’t purchase a gun at a gun show without a proper background check? Or that closing loopholes and supporting inter-state communication about gun sales and background checks would make it more difficult for someone to buy a gun in one state from a pawn shop and use it to commit a shooting in another state?

Never mind the fact that the argument not to do something because some people will try to do it anyway is a weak one.

Some pro-gun/anti-regulation advocates have cited a study recently released by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) as evidence that expanding background checks to include private transfers of guns won’t prevent mass shootings. The study claims that the frequency of mass shootings actually increases in states with background checks on private transfers, thus negating the need for expanded gun regulations as an effective means of protection.

In addition to this study’s fundamental error of conflating correlation with causation and ignoring missing data, it should be noted that the founder of the CPRC is gun researcher Dr. John Lott. His research, including additional work conducted by the CPRC, has come under scrutiny before and has largely been discredited. It’s not surprising that this study was not published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. Although the peer review process admittedly has its own glitches, it’s still the gold standard for ensuring that published studies are rigorous, impactful, and contain plausible conclusions. Hence, my reluctance to give credence to this particular study that many in the anti-regulation gun crowd are using as a rallying cry.

What’s happening with the gun debate and other polemical issues is something beyond people clinging to discredited data or researchers like Lott drawing conclusions that favor their beliefs. A recent NYTimes editorial talks about the extreme perspective on gun control taken by many of the current Republican presidential candidates, labeling them the “hear-nothing gun crowd,” aka the anti-regulation folks, who essentially refuse to engage in meaningful debate or even conversation about gun control. In fact, Ted Cruz preempted Obama’s public announcement about the gun regulation executive order by publicly condemning it before the specifics had been released; other Republican candidates responded in suit.

Aside from an obvious display of highly partisan politics (business as usual on the Hill), research on belief superiority1 may explain the playing field here. Belief superiority describes people who have more strongly held (“extreme”) beliefs who see these beliefs as superior to others’. This tendency seems to hold true regardless of direction (i.e., far-right or far-left viewpoints), although the issues may vary for self-identified liberals and conservatives. In a 2013 study of more than 500 participants published in Psych Science, those who identified as very conservative or very liberal on a particular issue were significantly more likely to agree that their beliefs are superior. Moderates or “neutral” participants were more open-minded and willing to consider beliefs that didn’t align perfectly with their own.

From Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 2013

These findings suggest that all of us, regardless of political ideology, are a bit biased at times. Combined with misinterpreted data, such as Lott’s skewed conclusions, rigid beliefs can produce counterproductive and immoveable perspectives.

So, take this for what you will: is the new executive gun order an attack on the Second Amendment, regardless of what the empirical evidence suggests? Are anti-regulation advocates just using it as another opportunity to espouse the same viewpoints, essentially hearing nothing? Don’t take the rhetoric and snide remarks about Obama’s “pointless” new gun regulations at face value. Consider the way belief superiority works and recognize that the more strongly held beliefs about guns people have, the less likely they may be open to alternative viewpoints. And also recognize this: guns aren’t being made illegal. These new regulations are likely to have a positive impact. Isn’t it worth trying?

 

 

1 – Toner, K., Leary, M.R., Asher, M.W., & Jongman-Sereno, K.P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 0956797613494848.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 18, 2015

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Racism and the Charleston Church Shooting: Strategies to Confront Prejudice

150618011703-11-charleston-shooting-0617-super-169

Image from CNN

As details have surfaced about the Charleston church shooting, we now know that 21-year-old Dylann Roof opened fire during a prayer circle and killed 9 people in what can almost certainly be called a hate crime. Roof’s racist beliefs are well-established based on reports from his roommate and acquaintances, as well as the patches on his jacket and reports of what he said at the time of the shooting. Even though Roof told multiple people that he planned some sort of massacre, no one appears to have alerted the authorities, or his family.

I have seen a lot of debate today about whether or not these people had a legal obligation to report this hate speech, and I can’t speak to that. But as a human being, I believe we all have an ethical obligation to speak up if we hear someone planning violence toward another person or group of people. In addition, I believe we have a social obligation to attempt to address any kind of expressed prejudice with that person directly. Social influence is powerful, and we can harness findings from the psychology literature to help us confront prejudice in our everyday lives. Here are some strategies:

1. Express that you don’t share the person’s views– Consensus is a persuasive thing. It’s been demonstrated time and again that people are swayed by the opinions of others. Solomon Asch’s famous experiments on conformity showed that people will agree with an incorrect answer to a simple judgment if the group is unanimous, and Stanley Milgram’s experiments about obedience were conducted in part to address how German soldiers were convinced to commit unspeakable atrocities during World War II.1,2

Part of the reason Asch’s participants purposefully chose the wrong answer, and German soldiers went along with    Hitler’s evil plans, is because of established social norms and social pressures. Muzafer Sherif contended that social norms become internalized through life experience, and this can work to either challenge or enforce prejudice depending on one’s social environment.3 But, it’s important to voice your disagreement, whether or not cultural norms in your area allow for this prejudice. There’s something called the false consensus effect, which shows that people tend to believe that others agree with them.4,5 Don’t let this person think their words are acceptable by staying silent.

2. Make that prejudice more immediate for them– Milgram found that participants were more likely to defy the experimenter when told to continue to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to another person when the immediacy of the victim increased.6 Only 34% of people defied the experimenter when the victim was in another room, while 60% of people defied the experimenter when the victim was in the same room.6 Find a way to make that prejudice more salient for the person as a way of confronting it, whether it be pointing out that one of their favorite musicians is a member of the group they’re marginalizing, or challenging them to think about how they would feel if someone expressed similar views about a group they identify with.

3. Confront the prejudice-Many effective ways of decreasing prejudice have to do with exposure to members of the marginalized group. Findings on mere exposure suggest that just being exposed to something can increase liking of it.7 Indeed, researchers have found that merely being exposed to people of other races can increase liking of that racial group.8 The large body of research on the contact hypothesis supports this as well, with people having increasingly less bias toward marginalized groups as contact with group members increased.9 An added benefit of this approach is that familiarly can help to interrupt automatic attitudes toward a marginalized group, like stereotyping.10

Confronting prejudice should be done with care to the marginalized group, especially if you believe the person may pose a threat to that group. If you believe that may be the case, you will want to start by confronting their prejudice from afar. For instance, you could do something as small as highlight people from the marginalized group that defy stereotypes the person has, or share some information about the history of the person’s bias and its deleterious effects. Someone who has already expressed violent desires toward the group is automatically someone who poses a threat to the group.

Join us at SocialPsyQ by confronting prejudice in your community by educating yourselves and others. We can only succeed in bringing about real change if we establish new social norms, and challenge one another to grow. We have the power to show others that their beliefs are not universal or objectively superior by confronting them one-on-one. We also have the power to help potential victims of hate crimes. When you see something, say something. Helping to change a mind could help to save a life.

  1. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1.
  2. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.
  3. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms.
  4. Mullen, B., Atkins, J. L., Champion, D. S., Edwards, C., Hardy, D., Story, J. E., & Vanderklok, M. (1985). The false consensus effect: A meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 262-283.
  5. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of experimental social psychology, 13(3), 279-301.
  6. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57-76.
  7. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
  8. Zebrowitz, L. A., White, B., & Wieneke, K. (2008). Mere exposure and racial prejudice: Exposure to other-race faces increases liking for strangers of that race. Social cognition, 26(3), 259.
  9. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social forces, 781-795.
  10. Quinn, K. A., Mason, M. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). Familiarity and person construal: Individuating knowledge moderates the automaticity of category activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 852-861
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 4, 2015

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Broaden, Build, and Shine: Supporting female networks

This morning, I was listening to an episode from one of my favorite podcasts Stuff Mom Never Told You (SMNTY) on Shine Theory. What is Shine Theory, you ask? Ann Friedman, a well-known feminist freelance writer, coined the term a few years back. It’s not a theory in the scientific use of the term, but it’s a compelling and important concept nonetheless. Shine Theory refers to the notion that women should befriend other women who are ambitious, smart, and supportive, regardless of how intimidating these women may seem to be. The rationale is that when other women in your circle do well, it positively affects you, likely inspiring you to strive for more in your life, both professionally and personally. Friedman simplifies it to “I don’t shine if you don’t shine,” something one of her own best friends taught her. The full definition and explanation can be found in the article linked above.

Shine Theory shouldn’t seem so extraordinary. At its core, it’s about women buoying each other up and every woman in that social network benefitting in the process. Yet, society is filled with examples of women backstabbing and competing with each other for resources, especially when threatened. This trope is so common that it’s earned an SNL parody (see below), and although strong and supportive female friendships on television and in film are more common now than ever—think Broad City—they’re still not the norm.

Traditional evolutionary psychologists would suggest that jealousy between women is rooted in the most basic of human motives: reproduction1. Namely, traditional* evolutionary psychology views jealousy between women to be caused by the threat of one woman stealing another woman’s man, and along with it, her ability to be provided for. Aside from the heteronormative assumptions implicit in this explanation, can we all agree that it’s also a bit simplistic and outdated? Can we really explain all of human nature, including jealousy between women, as a function of mate selection and reproduction? In case you couldn’t tell, I’m a skeptic. And thankfully, I’m not the only one.

Shine Theory is in direct contradiction to the explanations put forth by traditional evolutionary psychologists about women and jealousy. Do women compete with each other? Sure. Are they sometimes threatened by other women? Absolutely. The media certainly doesn’t help to disprove the cattiness trope, but I would argue that social role theory—that is, the way we’re socialized to behave according to specific gender norms and scripts—is a more accurate reason for why women compete with each other. These gender norms and social roles are deeply engrained. However, one of the wonderful aspects of human nature is people’s ability to adapt and transcend. Women don’t have to adhere to the social norm. In fact, they can do their part to change the social norm. Shine Theory champions what’s often framed as the exception to the norm, supportive women who cheer other women on and wish them success, who don’t grow bitter or aggressive when one woman succeeds instead of them.  The fantastic female hosts of SMNTY Caroline Ervin and Cristen Conger pointed out Amy Poehler’s famous saying in their Shine Theory episode that can also be used as a good maxim for how to support other women: “Good for you. Not for me.”

In addition to my own personal (and Beyonce’s) support of Shine Theory, there is ample empirical research on the positive effects of, well, experiencing positive emotions and supporting others. The broaden-and-build theory2 provides a great deal of support for the effect of positive emotions on our own well-being. The theory also accounts for the ability of positive emotions to counter negative ones, like envy. Positive emotions not only feel good, but they also expand our thinking, attention, and holistic processing and may enhance our coping skills for times when we may be envious of a friend’s success.3 Furthermore, the broaden hypothesis suggests that positive emotion, in comparison to negative or neutral ones, can enhance perspective-taking and compassion for others.4 The broaden-and-build model makes a strong case for forming a supportive social network. It accounts for why Shine Theory can work and also describes the process of addressing negative emotions that will surely surface occasionally. The figure below demonstrates the outcomes that can result from experiencing positive emotions, including novel experiences. These novel experiences make it easier for people to build stronger social networks with all the benefits that entails, such as social support and resources. Furthermore, strong social networks improve people’s health and fulfillment, which leads to more positive emotions. Figure 1 is a visual representation of “I don’t shine if you don’t shine.”

Fredrickson, Broaden-and-build model

Fredrickson, Broaden-and-build model

Hannah Rosin, a writer at Slate, critiqued Shine Theory when it first came out, asking what would happen to a woman in her circle of friends if she lost her job or suffered some other type of disappointment? Would or should she be shunned from her social circle because she’s no longer as successful? A fair question given a strict interpretation of Shine Theory. Rosin’s solution was to distinguish friends from colleagues, thereby providing a sort of buffer for those sorts of experiences. However, I don’t think that’s necessary. Shine Theory isn’t a perfect idea without concerns, but it wasn’t designed to be. Rather, it’s a female-centric positive support model that’s certainly a welcome alternative to the backstabbing model often shown in the media. And it undoubtedly already exists among female friend groups and social networks and has existed in the past. I believe that Friedman’s main goal in writing about Shine Theory was to popularize it and to encourage all women to participate. At the risk of quoting Amy Poehler/Leslie Knope too much, “Uteruses before duderuses.”**

What do you all think? Is Shine Theory the way to go, or is it just a self-serving example of BIRGing?

1 Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B: 2013368 20130080. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0080 2,3,4 Fredrickson, B. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47) (pp. 1-53). Burlington: Academic Press.

*I was pleasantly surprised to learn recently that not all evolutionary psychologists espouse such reductionist views regarding the drive to reproduce and select a mate.

**Men can act this way, too, of course. The broaden-and-build model wasn’t formulated specifically with women in mind. Positive emotions help everyone. However, given the societal constructs of gender and power, women are most likely to benefit from Shine Theory. Men don’t need quite that same boost.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 23, 2014

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

The Skinny on Online Dating: Psychology at work

Image from Mashable.com

          Image from Mashable.com

In Meg Jay’s book The Defining Decade: Why your twenties matter—and how to make the most of them now, she makes a point that online dating is a good idea, because it matches people based on personality traits-something that predicts long-term relationship success. In real life, relationships may form because two people happen to be at the same bar, or have a mutual friend. But research has shown time and time again that similarity attracts.1,2 Given the way online dating sites work, by matching people based on compatibility of personality and preferences, it is not surprising that more than a third of marriages now start online. And, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2013 report on online dating, 38% of single American adults looking for a partner have used online dating sites or apps. Of Americans who found their spouse online, they report higher marital satisfaction and lower divorce rates than couples that met IRL.3

With the current popularity of apps like Tinder and sites like OkCupid, it’s impossible to ignore the psychological field experiment that is online dating. There are 3 areas of psychology research that are incredibly relevant to online dating: Personality, self-presentation and deception.

Personality– Many online dating sites require users to fill out a battery of questions, several of which are focused on personality characteristics. A question, “Do you like wild parties?” appears in OkCupid’s personality questionnaire, which psychologists may recognize as a version of the sensation-seeking personality item “I like wild parties.”4 In addition to direct adaptations of established personality questionnaires, questions ask about cleanliness and keeping promises (conscientiousness), new experiences and adventurousness (openness to experience), if you would do things just because your partner wanted to (agreeableness), if you like to talk or meet new people (extraversion) and if you get jealous and worried about things you can’t change (neuroticism). As you can see, and as Meg Jay suggested, these sites evaluate users largely based on what is known as the Big 5 of personality.5,6 Research has found that romantic attachment styles relate to the Big 5, and various personality traits correlate with specific relationship outcomes, like neuroticism and decreased relationship satisfaction.7,8

Self-presentation– With the high stakes of finding a meaningful relationship, online dating users may choose to engage in self-presentation: the practice of managing the impressions we make on others.9 Research suggests that self-presentation motives may be especially salient because creating online content gives people an opportunity to overtly self-promote.10 Evidence suggests that it may be easier to self-present in a positive light than one may think. Being seen as socially expressive, presenting an ideal self, engaging in self-disclosure and “matching your profile” when meeting in person can all contribute to self-presentational success.11,12,13,14 Self-presentation concerns stay consistent throughout the lifespan, with aging men still preferring youth and physical attractiveness, and leveraging information about status on their own online dating profiles.15

Deception– Sometimes self-presentation goes beyond a favorable description of the self, and veers toward untruthfulness. Studies by Toma and Hancock found that people who were rated lower in attractiveness by independent raters were more likely to lie about physical descriptions, and use an “enhanced” profile picture.16 Another study by the same group of researchers found that women were more likely to use deceptive pictures than men, using younger pictures, or pictures taken by a professional, among other tactics; but that only about 1/3 of profile pictures were rated as inaccurate.17 Yet another study found that men were more likely to post deceptive information about financial assets, relationship goals and their own interests and attributes, and women were more likely to post misleading information about their weight.18

While the increasing popularity of online dating indicates it may be the way of the future, the psychological principles behind it are time-tested and peer-approved.

Our area head, Dr. Mark Leary, is one of the foremost experts on self-presentation. You can find his self-presentation-related Google Scholar results here.

  1. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713-715.
  1. Byrne, D. & Griffitt, W. (1969). Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3(3), 179-186.
  1. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A, 110(25), 10135-10140.
  1. Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Pugles Lorch, E., Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401-414.
  1. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “Description of Personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
  1. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
  1. Shaver, P. R. & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationships outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545.
  1. White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationships constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519-1530.
  1. Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and a two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.
  1. Schau, H. J. & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385-404.
  1. Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the “real world”: Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 573-576.
  1. Ellison, N. B., Heino, R. D., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.
  1. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.
  1. Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1707-1723.
  1. Alterovitz, S. S. R. & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2009). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 513-517.
  1. Toma, C. L. & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335-351.
  1. Hancock, J. T. & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367-386.
  1. Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 117-135.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 10, 2014

Posted under

Get Psyched, Social Psyched

Comments

1 Comment

Obesity and public health campaigns: Finding the Holy Grail

Obesity is a disease. It has been since June 2013, at least according to the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA formally recognized obesity as a disease with the intention that such a classification would prompt additional funding for obesity research. However, a set of studies published in Psychological Science1 earlier this year suggests that designating obesity as a disease without considering the psychological consequences has a variety of positive and negative implications for obese and average-weight individuals.

Across a set of three studies where more than 50% of the 700+ participants were classified as overweight or obese according to the Body Mass Index (BMI), psychology researchers Crystal Hoyt, Jeni Burnette, and Lisa Auster-Gussman found that obese individuals reported significant decreases in weight concern and body dissatisfaction when they received the message that obesity was a disease, whereas average weight individuals demonstrated no such pattern when exposed to the same message. At first glance, this finding suggests that the “obesity as a disease” model is effective at increasing body satisfaction and, perhaps, decreasing internalized stigma.

Choose Health LA County ad campaign

Example of weight management-focused (incremental mindset) public health strategy

At a recent talk I attended, Dr. Burnette discussed these findings as well as related findings from some more recent studies about the relationship between the obesity as disease message and an entity mindset. An entity mindset is the belief that an ability or characteristic, such as intelligence or weight, is fixed and not malleable as a result of effort or behavior change2,3. Burnette suggested that believing obesity is a disease implies that weight is static, that it’s not people’s lack of willpower or behavior making them obese, but rather, their genes and physiologies. This notion seems to decrease anti-fat prejudice and blame placed on obese individuals4. This approach seems promising: reducing stigma and blame, as well as increasing the likelihood of research funding.

There’s a catch, of course. In addition to the decreased weight concern and body dissatisfaction, obese individuals who saw the disease message were also more likely to make hypothetical unhealthy food choices, unlike average weight individuals or obese individuals exposed to the weight-management control. The researchers suggest that these food choices may be a downstream consequence of the disease label and the entity mindset it may induce. That is, if obesity indicates a physiological malfunction, thus making weight control efforts ineffective, why bother trying? The very message that decreases blame seems to reduce motivation to manage weight, too.

The belief that weight loss efforts are ineffective for obese individuals is not completely implausible. Food researcher Traci Mann and fellow obesity researchers have found that long-term weight loss for obese folks is the exception, not the norm. Receiving the message that obesity is a disease and fixed may be affirming to an obese person who was previously told that weight loss attempts were a personal failing. Regardless, it could be argued that the positive impact of affirmation and acceptance is diminished if it’s accompanied by regular unhealthy food choices.

In contrast, obese participants who were shown the control message of standard weight management strategies demonstrated a different pattern. Their concern for their weight did not decrease, but nor did they subsequently choose higher-calorie, unhealthy foods. The implication, which the researchers mention, is that some level of mild body dissatisfaction may be motivating to eat healthier foods and to be more active. But these findings present something of a double-edged sword, as Dr. Burnette mentioned at her recent talk.

The weight management (control) message may have induced an incremental mindset of weight, the alternative to an entity mindset about weight. An incremental mindset affords people more agency by implying that weight can be altered, presumably through behavior change. Accompanying empowerment, however, is the shift in blame away from an obese person’s genes and onto them and their behavior. As Burnette said, promoting either mindset to obese and non-obese individuals alike can have negative effects.

So, what’s a public health professional to do, particularly when obesity has already been officially labeled a disease? It’s exactly that sort of question that Burnette and her collaborators would like to pursue in future research. Specifically, how should public health messages be structured to motivate and promote an incremental mindset for obese individuals without the body image costs and blame? No obvious or simple answers exist yet. Burnette says that the answer to that question would be “the Holy Grail.”

Anyone out there come across research that might answer this or have a suggestion? Post it in the comments!

 

 

1Hoyt, C.L., Burnette, J.L., & Auster-Gussman, L. (2014). “Obesity is a disease”: Examining the self-regulatory impact of this public-health message. Psychological Science, 25, 997-1002.

2 Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C.Y., & Hong, Y.Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.

3 Burnette, J.L., O’Boyle, E., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., & Finkel, E.J. (2013). Mindsets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655-701.

4Monterosso, J., Royzman, E.B., & Schwartz, B. (2005). Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 139-158.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 28, 2014

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

1 Comment

Get Psyched for Halloween!

Image from Nutritious Eats

           Image from Nutritious Eats

If you’re like me, some of your favorite childhood memories are of Halloween. You get to dress up like someone or something else, go to strangers’ houses and ask them for treats, cause a little mischief and binge on candy. But the best thing about Halloween? There’s a lot of social psychology at work.

Anonymity: Anonymity may make people more susceptible to group influence.1 This could even help to account for an increase in criminal activity on Halloween. Visual anonymity, specifically, seems to increase identification with the group, be that delinquent peers or society in general.2 Some classic studies have found a direct correlation between stealing and Halloween costumes.3,4 Researchers found that trick-or-treaters who were both anonymous and with a group of other children were more likely to steal candy and money when given the chance.3 Another study found that Halloween masks could elicit a state of deindividuation*, and found evidence that children in masks were more likely to take more candy than unmasked children, when the experimenter was not in the room.4

Norms: Usually, if you knocked on someone’s door at night dressed as a blood-sucking Zombie demanding candy, people would freak out and call the police. But on Halloween, this would be expected, and norms would be altered for the night. You might even be called a party pooper if you don’t make an effort to dress in costume. These kinds of social norms have long been of interest to social psychologists. Descriptive norms are social rules transmitted by others; so when you show up to the Halloween party as the only one in costume, all of a sudden, you feel out of place, even though you would fit in at a more festive party.5 Injunctive norms speak to what should be done, or what is socially endorsed, i.e. you should go to the party in costume because you are supposed to wear a costume on Halloween.5 Social norms are often positive, but they can also lead to higher levels of conformity, riskier decisions and worse decisions through consensus.6,7,8,9 Norms are also at work when people throw costume parties, visit the pumpkin patch or go to haunted houses. Not only does the seasonal social acceptance of the activity encourage us to partake in some strange stuff, our desire to act in accordance with norms is a billion dollar industry ($11.3 to be exact).

Prosocial behavior: The act of handing out free candy to kids is both a Halloween norm, and an example of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is any behavior that works for the good of the group, rather than the good of the self. Things like sharing, taking turns and common courtesy are all types of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior has a lot of individual and societal benefits like lower perceptions of competition, higher need for achievement, higher social cognitive abilities in children and may even be linked to higher levels of altruism.10,11,12

It’s clear that our Halloween traditions involve social psychology, from the norms in place that dictate our Halloween activities, the anonymity that allows for increased mischief, and the prosocial nature of some of our Halloween traditions. So this Friday, put your SocialPsyQ to work! What are some social psychology phenomena you see on Halloween?

* Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness in groups.

  1. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & de Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243-1254.
  2. Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526-537.
  3. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Pschology, 33(2), 178-183.
  4. Miller, F. G., & Rowold, K. L. (1979). Halloween masks and deindividuation. Psychological reports, 44(2), 422
  5. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds). The handbook of social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.), (pp. 151-192). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
  6. Sherif, M. (1937). An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry, 1(1/2), 90-98.
  7. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70.
  8. Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(4), 442-459.
  9. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 918-930.
  10. Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 615-621.
  11. Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57(1), 194-201.
  12. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 23, 2014

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

Leave a comment

Beating the Wedding Industrial Complex—You can, too!

September and October are becoming increasingly popular months for weddings, overtaking the more traditional wedding month of June, which makes now the perfect time to talk about the wedding industrial complex, or WIC for short. I first heard this term on APracticalWedding.com, where the editor-in-chief Meg Keene wrote a fantastic post on it, and it resonated with me immediately. You see, I’m getting married this weekend. I was in the thick of fighting off the WIC—now I’m almost through!—and it is difficult, despite my knowledge of social psychology.

For those of you who are married, and especially those who got married during the current social media era where social comparison is ever easier, you may already know what I’m talking about. For those of you who would like to get married eventually, consider yourself warned. The WIC is basically all those factors that interact to make the two people getting married feel pressured to have the “right” type of wedding. Note: “right” often translates to traditional and expensive.

The WIC preys on the unsuspecting good-intentioned folks who just want to have a nice wedding. They want to have fun, they want it to be organized and pretty, and they definitely do not want anyone to be hungry. Deciding the specifics that correspond with each of those desires is more ambiguous. Enter the wedding industry. The wedding industry is a $51 billion dollar a year industry that seeks to convince you that you absolutely need to have a fully stocked open bar, and your dress must be Vera Wang with an intricate bouquet to match. Anything less, and your wedding will be just that: less than.

Admittedly, I’m painting a harsh picture of the wedding industry, making them seem calculating and manipulative, all in the goal to get you to spend as much money as possible to have The Perfect Wedding. If I’m being fair, the wedding industry is not the only cause to blame here; after all, the ultimate goal of businesses is to turn a profit. It’s also you. Yes, you, your expectations, societal influence, and more than a little bit of social psychology.

  One of the most egregious examples of injunctive wedding norms I’ve ever seen

Why do we feel the need to stress out over seemingly inconsequential details about the wedding (like whether the cumberbund color will clash with the table runners)* when, realistically, we know that a wedding is not about the color scheme? What it really boils down to is social norms. That is, how people “should” behave and how people are actually behaving. The former is an injunctive norm, and it implies there’s a right and wrong way to do things. The latter is a descriptive norm, and it describes how people are actually behaving.

The injunctive norm tells us that weddings are supposed to have a sit down dinner, that paper flowers are not okay, that not having a bridal party—gasp!—is totally crossing the line. I won’t even get into the proscribed norms about how a bride should look. The descriptive norm incorporates all those wedding experiences of your friends, family, celebrities, and the wedding industry as if to say, “See? This is how weddings are happening all across your world.” Descriptive doesn’t imply that an action or event is right or wrong, but the boundary between descriptive and injunctive seems to get blurry when wedding planning is involved.

Clearly, both types of norms contribute to the wedding industrial complex, because they draw in a person’s experiences and exposure to what the mainstream culture suggests is appropriate for a wedding.

So how can you escape the seemingly impenetrable wedding industrial complex? Well, you can use norms to your own advantage. Specifically, use descriptive norms in a way that promotes and helps your wedding experience. Make your wedding the norm. After all, your wedding should count as much as any of the others. Seek out additional sources of support (like apracticalwedding.com) that diminish any injunctive norms, because there really isn’t a right or wrong way to do weddings. Finally, even if you aren’t planning a wedding yourself right now, be supportive of anyone who is. Don’t contribute to the wedding industrial complex by imposing injunctive norms on anyone. You may have been part of the problem, but you can also be part of the solution!

Wish me luck this weekend.

 

*Some profanity in here. Potentially NSFW.

**The traditional wedding I’m drawing my norms from refers primarily to a middle-upper class wedding. Admittedly, weddings of all shapes and sizes exists with their own accompanying pressures!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 2, 2014

Posted under

Social Psyched

Comments

1 Comment

Check your privilege

Let’s talk about privilege. White privilege. Male privilege. Class privilege. Straight privilege. All of those categories of people’s identities that dictate how they experience the world, whether they like it or not, and of which there are many more. We often think about privilege from a sociological perspective: institutional racism/sexism/other -isms, and limitations and expectations imposed on people by mainstream society. But what if we thought about privilege through a psychological lens? Specifically, what if we considered the role of the individual both in perpetuating and recognizing unfair privilege in society?*

This summer I taught Social Psychology to undergraduates. To prepare for class, I would do my best to incorporate cultural and relevant examples of topics and processes to make them more relevant and relatable to my students, which got me thinking about the fundamental attribution error and its role in perpetuating privilege in all of its various forms.

The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is a topic covered early in social psychology courses. It’s covered early because it reveals a basic (fundamental, if I may) flaw in the way that people interpret the world. Briefly, the FAE refers to the tendency of people to assume that another person’s behavior is caused by something inherent about that person—their disposition, their personality, etc.—rather than taking the situational context in mind. Consider this scenario: you see someone you know walking toward you on the sidewalk. You smile and wave, but this person walks right past you without any acknowledgment. “How rude!” you think. I thought he was a nice person, but maybe I was wrong, you might conclude. If your thinking follows that pattern, then you just committed the FAE. In all likelihood, the person you knew probably just didn’t see you. His behavior was a function of the situation—maybe he was in a hurry—and not an indicator of who he is as a person. This type of example is often how the FAE is taught, particularly because social psychology studies the individual as its unit of analysis.

But the FAE has significant implications for privilege if you zoom out and examine its influence on a societal level. It relates to privilege because the groups of people who are likely to be oppressed and systematically discriminated against as a function of white (or male or any other type) of privilege are also likely to be victims of the FAE. One of the components of privilege is that you are not seen as an ambassador or a “token” of your group (see any of the links above). One man doesn’t speak for all men. One white person doesn’t speak for all white people. These examples seem obvious. Yet, people who fall outside of these privileged groups often carry the burden of being viewed as the sole representative of their group. If one black person speaks, that person is more likely to be seen as representative of all black people, which is an incredibly unfair responsibility.

Combined with the tendency of people to commit the FAE, you can see the problem. That is, if a black woman is treated unfairly at a checkout counter, and she responds in frustration or anger, the unfortunate consequence is that people are less likely to perceive and consider all the different factors in the situation. Rather than see this woman as someone who is reacting appropriately (or at the very least, justifiably) to her current experience, people are likely to make two assumptions: 1) decide that this woman is an angry and impatient person, and 2) extend that judgment to all black women, which helps to explain the trope of the “angry black woman.” The FAE contributes to the first assumption, and white privilege is responsible for the second. Because not only does white privilege inordinately and unfairly favor white people, it does so at the expense of people of color. Not only do white people get boosted up and given the benefit of the doubt, but people of color get pushed down further. Replace white with male, straight, or class, and people of color with female/trans, gay, or poor, and you get a staggering number of different biased scenarios**.

It’s not all bad news, however. Combating the FAE is possible, although it may require some effort. Those who don’t commit the FAE may simply be more empathic people, but they also tend to be people who know that the FAE exists. They understand how it works and are aware of the shortcomings of human perception. People who know about the FAE can work to pay more attention to situational factors that may explain someone’s behavior without jumping to the conclusion that an act is because of a person’s disposition. For an excellent example of how to do this, check out this video:

 

As for privilege, recognizing its existence is one of the first steps to not being complicit in it. I’m talking to those of you who fit in to some privileged group or another. Many of us do find ourselves in at least one group of privilege at some point in our lives—remember I’m speaking to you from my perspective of a white middle class person. No, we didn’t ask for this privilege. No, we don’t think it’s fair. No, it doesn’t matter that we think these things. Like the FAE, privilege is subtle and must be acknowledged as an initial step. Recognition is just the first step. We must pay attention to it and understand how it affects situational factors in our daily lives, and then take steps to correct that. It’s a lot to take on, but the weight is very little compared to what non-privileged folks must bear every day. Doing so is the only acceptable alternative if we want individuals to contribute collectively to true racial and social justice. If you’re not sure how or you’d like to learn more about privilege, start by reading any of these blogs below.

Resources:

Black Girl Dangerous

TimWise.org

Decolonizing Yoga

It’s Pronounced Metrosexual

*I recognize that the fact that I can choose when I want to think about privilege is, in fact, another element of my white privilege. Not everyone has that luxury.

** I chose to focus on white privilege for two reasons: 1) As a white person, I’ve benefitted from and experienced white privilege all my life, and 2) the heart-wrenching and infuriating race-related events of the last few months, particularly in Ferguson, Missouri.