Posted by

Jen

Posted on

July 7, 2015

Posted under

Comments

Getting ish done: Setting and achieving realistic goals

Summer is a time when people set new goals for themselves. It means more time for exercising, gardening, catching up with friends, or organizing your place. It could also mean traveling, more work, or any combination of these activities. But setting goals does not guarantee success of goals…

Why is it easier to achieve some goals than others? Aside from the obvious—some goals are genuinely more difficult to achieve, like buying a home compared to earning a free coffee after purchasing 12 coffees prior—other factors may be influencing your success. Using goal research, the following questions serve as a primer to increase your likelihood of successful goal pursuit.
1. How is the goal defined? The more concretely a goal is defined, the easier it is to measure progress toward goal achievement. For example, let’s imagine that someone has a goal to eat healthier. An admirable and respectable goal, indeed, but what does eating healthier mean to this person? What would success for this goal look like? The more specifically the goal is defined, the easier it is to track progress toward goal achievement. Maybe eating healthier means eating a banana every day. Maybe it means limiting dessert to twice a week. Regardless of the form they take, setting tangible markers of progress increases your likelihood of success [1].

2. Do you think you can do it? Setting realistic goals is not new advice, but it bears repeating. Your expectations of goal achievement influence your progress toward and your commitment to your goal. If you expect yourself to crash and burn, then you probably will. Many of us have experienced this firsthand. If you have a goal of reducing social media usage, but you doubt that you can break up with Facebook, then readjusting your goal to account for your own preferences is recommended. Sometimes this translates into setting smaller and manageable goals first, and then working up to a greater, and ultimately desired, end goal. Maybe you strive to reduce your Facebook usage gradually, or you eliminate Twitter or Tumblr first, for example.

3. How close are you to achieving this goal? Beginning a new goal versus being near goal completion typically requires different strategies. People often adjust their goal pursuit strategies without realizing it depending on the particular stage of goal pursuit. For example, some research suggests that people exaggerate any progress made in the beginning of pursuit to make success seem more attainable and downplay progress toward the end when close to goal completion to highlight the need for continued effort [2]. Other work suggests that perceiving progress toward a goal (i.e., believing that you’re closer to goal completion) leads to relaxed pursuit of the goal [3], also known as coasting. Coasting is when people don’t feel the need to work as hard toward the goal, because they’re doing just fine [4]. Both of these processes occur at different times depending on the type of goal you have (see questions 1 and 4).

4. Does this goal require maintenance? Some goals are obviously completed once you achieve them. Earning a degree, for example. While achieving this goal may have required maintaining certain behaviors over an extended period, goal achievement is obvious and clear-cut: you have your degree. Not surprisingly, many goals are not like this. Health goals are a prototypical maintenance goal. They’re never truly completed. Even if an initial first part has been achieved, such as reaching a goal weight, the maintenance phase will likely continue indefinitely, which is why continued success is difficult without additional reinforcements (to be discussed in a later post!). Maintenance goals often require rewards, consistent checking in with yourself about your progress, and, sometimes, flexibility regarding the means to goal achievement.

Goals are complicated. Rarely, if ever, do people pursue a single goal at any time [5]. We are continuously juggling and re-prioritizing our goals, big and small, every day of our lives. Doing so is undoubtedly hard work, and these questions certainly do not capture every element of goal pursuit. However, if you’re struggling to finish something or you need a refresher, ask yourself the questions above. They’re a good place to start.

References
1 – Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 39-58.
2 – Huang, S. C., Zhang, Y., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2012). So near and yet so far: The mental representation of goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 225-241.
3 – Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
4 – Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2011). Self-regulation of action and affect. In K.D. Vohs & R.F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.) (3-21). New York: Guilford Press.
5 – Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 331-378.

Posted by

Mallory

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.

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.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms.
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.
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.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57-76.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
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.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social forces, 781-795.
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

Posted by

Mallory

Posted on

June 4, 2015

Posted under

Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

Papa Don’t Preach: Josh Duggar and the Psychological Consequences of Christian Patriarchy (Part 3)

Image from TVGuide.com

Last night’s Kelly File interview with the Duggars confirmed many of the details about the Duggar scandal. Namely, Josh Duggar informed his parents of his behavior after he had victimized two of his sisters, and the Duggars did not remove him from their home until there were two additional incidents, involving three more girls. The interview was very Josh-focused, and when Kelly asked how Jim Bob felt about his daughters being molested, specifically as the father of those girls, again he brought it back to Josh immediately, saying, “I was so thankful though…that Josh came and told us.” That brings me to some of the most difficult issues associated with Christian Patriarchy: Sexism and Privilege. (You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here).

5) Sexism- It is impossible to discuss these extreme religious movements without noting the marginalization of women. From constant pregnancy to assertions that men are more moral than women, many of the practices of the Christian Patriarchy movement are meant to keep women “in their place.” It’s also clear that women have little say in what happens to them in these male-dominated environments. The Duggars allowed Josh to live in the same home as several of his victims and rather than offering him psychological counseling, they sent him to Little Rock to remodel someone’s house. Living in a culture of sexism can be incredibly damaging to the psyche of young women, causing them to have lower levels of achievement, which is related to a lot of negative consequences, including poor mental and physical health.^1,2

Benevolent sexism is one culprit for the position of women in Christian Patriarchy. Benevolent sexism is the belief that women need to be offered protection from men, and women often come to endorse this chivalrous ideology as well.³ This type of sexism endorses gender inequality and traditional gender roles.³ Hostile sexism on the other hand, refers to overtly antagonistic feelings about women, including views that women try to influence men with their sexuality.³ Both amounts of benevolent and hostile sexism predict women’s position in society across cultures.⁴ Since Christian Patriarchy affirms that women can “defraud” men with revealing clothing, and asserts that men must take care of women, combining both hostile and benevolent sexism, it results in something called ambivalent sexism.³ There’s also evidence that benevolent sexism increases system justification, or endorsement of the status quo, regardless of fairness.⁵ The type of socialization in Christian Patriarchy that focuses on very specific sex-roles for their children is known to contribute to issues related to sexism.⁶ In fact, there is evidence that men who are sexist are more likely to stereotype women, essentially seeing women in traditional roles as Madonnas and women in non-traditional roles as whores.⁷

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that men are not more virtuous than women. The FBI estimated that over 12.4 million arrests were made in the US in 2011, and that 74.1% of those arrested were men. According to the DOJ, 95% of those arrested for sexual offenses are male. In fact, sometimes men make worse choices than women and act less responsibly. For instance, men are far more likely to die in fatal car crashes than women, with men accounting for about 70% of motor vehicle-related deaths. None of this is to say that women are better decision makers than men, but I think we can all agree that men and women both bring something to the head of the table.

6) Privilege- The Christian Patriarchy movement is predictably full of male privilege. Codifying a system where men reign supreme allows men to justify their superior position. While men often acknowledge that women are at a disadvantage, they are far less likely to admit that they are benefiting from male privilege.⁸ Part of the issue surrounding privilege is that people who are privileged are meant to remain unaware of the nature of that privilege, and how it affects others.⁸ Educating people about privilege has been shown to improve attitudes and decrease prejudice toward women.⁹ Which is good, since male privilege can be so powerful that it often introduces itself as an issue in family therapy.¹⁰Since it is such an issue in families that don’t practice Christian Patriarchy, it’s obvious that these issues may be even more magnified when this privilege is purposely afforded to men.

Male privilege is bad for women, plain and simple. Some researchers assert that male privilege is the reason that crimes that affect mainly women, like stalking or sexual harassment, are still under acknowledged in society.¹¹ Male privilege also often leads to favorable legal outcomes for men in domestic violence situations, downplaying violence against women while people go to jail for far lesser crimes.¹² This legal advantage only serves to solidify and extend male privilege. We even see female athletes often delegated to second-class, as professional sports have traditionally been dominated by men.¹³ There are many ways in which being male affords one advantages that females don’t have.

However, people can be privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others. For instance, many people fail to acknowledge their white privilege because they also have an unprivileged status, due to gender, sexual orientation, wealth or status. For instance, I may not have male privilege, but I still enjoy white privilege, something that minority women cannot claim. Similarly, black men enjoy some aspects of male privilege, but they are disadvantaged by white privilege.

Privilege is incredibly complex, but it is important to acknowledge how privilege puts us in certain positions or grants us certain advantages. Specifically, in the Duggar’s case, male privilege allowed Josh Duggar to feel that he could violate young girl’s bodies and allowed Jim Bob Duggar to believe that instituting his own “safeguards” would end the behavior, and white privilege allowed the Duggars to avoid any legal consequences of these actions. Even now, the Duggars have not been charged with obstructing justice or visited by Child and Protective Services, and Josh Duggar has never been charged with any sex crimes. The fact that Josh Duggar has used his position to marginalize others, especially the gay community, shows that he is largely unaware of how his privilege has helped him to avoid legal consequences, and has helped him retain some support in the court of public opinion. It is hard to imagine the same legal and public response to the same transgressions in a minority family.

We have explored various psychological findings that may have been behind Josh Duggar’s actions. The constant refrain of “it’s more common than you think” and “the girls didn’t even know” from the Duggar camp goes to show how marginalized women are in Christian Patriarchy. Going forward, it would help to focus less on Josh Duggar’s specific actions, and more on the culture that molded him into someone who felt that he could violate women’s bodies, as long as he told his dad after.

NOTE: Jen wrote a great article on privilege and the Fundamental Attribution Error last year that you can read here. Also, Peggy McIntosh wrote a very famous piece about unpacking the backpack of privilege that everyone should read, especially those who are confused about ways in which they are privileged.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 512-515.

Willis, S., & Kenway, J. (1986). On overcoming sexism in schooling: To marginalize or mainstream. Australian Journal of Education, 30(2), 132-149.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109.

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 763.

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 498.

O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist.

Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1323-1334.

McIntosh, P. (2003). White privilege and male privilege. Privilege: A reader, 147-160.

Case, K. A. (2007). Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: An evaluation of diversity courses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 426-435.

Vecchio, D. D. (1998). Dismantaling White male privilege within family therapy.

Wildman, S. M. (2000). Ending Male Privilege: Beyond the Reasonable Woman.

Johnson, J. R. (2002). Privileged Justice Under Law: Reinforcement of Male Privilege by the Federal Judiciary Through the Lens of the Violence Against Women Act and US v. Morrison. Santa Clara L. Rev., 43, 1399.

Messner, M. A. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of sport journal, 5(3), 197-211.

Posted by

Mallory

Posted on

June 1, 2015

Posted under

Psych

Comments

1 Comment

Papa Don’t Preach: Josh Duggar and the Psychological Consequences of Christian Patriarchy (Part 2)

Image from Twitter

Over a week ago, allegations were confirmed that Josh Duggar sexually assaulted 5 underage women while still a minor himself. While his personal actions are deplorable and inexcusable, his upbringing as a member of the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements likely had an impact on his behavior. At SocialPsyQ we’re exploring the possible psychological forces that may have helped to motivate these crimes and others like them. If you missed part 1, you can read it here.

In part 2 of our analysis of the Duggar scandal, we’ll discuss Groupthink and Confirmation Bias.

3) Groupthink- Groupthink can help to explain many a disaster, from the decision to launch the Challenger to the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion. Groupthink is a phenomenon whereby people in a group are motivated to maintain group harmony by isolating themselves from outside influences and ignoring unpopular opinions.¹ The problem is that this often leads to bad decisions, since the decision-makers don’t have all of the information and have not considered all of the alternatives. There are several types of situations that can make groups vulnerable to groupthink. For instance, there’s collective avoidance, where all members of a group act defensively to prevent failure, and there’s collective overoptimism, which is marked by overconfidence in achieving success.² Either or both of these types of situations could be at play in Christian Patriarchy, as the group acts to avoid failing to instill an appreciation of their religious beliefs in their children, and they are convinced that their brand of Christianity will lead to successfully accomplishing this.

Groupthink is definitely at work in extreme religious movements or cults where a group of people comes to advocate certain practices or beliefs, regardless of their actual merit or social acceptability. For instance, beliefs in the Christian Patriarchy movement that women belong in the home and need a male authority to remain pure are fairly outmoded, but being surrounded by a large group of people with these same beliefs normalizes them, and discourages dissenters from speaking up. Researchers have found that contrary to popular opinion, we aren’t most strongly influenced by close others like friends, but by people who we identify with as part of the same social group.³ So, for the Duggars, these influencers are likely fellow members of their church, and the leaders of the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements.

The major antecedents of groupthink are: 1) The existence of a cohesive group, 2) The expression of a preference from a respected leader, and 3) Insulation from useful outside opinions that should be considered.⁴ There are also several symptoms of groupthink. Some important ones that may have played a role here are: Morality-Where groups come to believe that their opinion is the morally superior one, Stereotyped Views of Others-Where group members have simplified views of people with opposing positions, Pressure on Dissent-Where group members pressure people who question the majority opinion, Self-Censorship-Where people who disagree with the majority feel they cannot speak up, Illusion of Unanimity-Where people assume that those group members who don’t speak up agree with the majority position, and Mindguarding-Where specific group members act to shield the group from outside information that is contrary to group beliefs.⁴ It is easy to tell that almost all of the symptoms of groupthink are at play in these extreme religious movements. These symptoms may help to explain why women also adhere to Christian Patriarchy, even though it seems obvious that it is not in their best interests. Sadly, Groupthink discourages people from speaking up, and may have played a role in the cover-up of Duggar’s abuse, as well.

4) Confirmation bias-We’ve discussed this on SocialPsyQ before, but confirmation bias seems to underlie many of the actions of these extremely religious people. Confirmation bias occurs when someone specifically seeks evidence or interprets information in such a way that it confirms their already existing beliefs.⁵ Confirmation bias can even operate in science, when researchers design their studies or interpret their data in such a way that it confirms their hypothesis.⁶ But, of course, laypeople do this as well with their own ideas about the world.

For instance, Fox News often presents news in a different way than other news outlets. If Fox News presents information that is more in line with your already existing beliefs, you are more likely to listen to that news station than one that calls your beliefs into question. People who are more committed to their ideas, or have just been reminded of their strong beliefs, are more likely to exhibit confirmation bias than individuals who are not.⁷ That’s not to say that only some people show confirmation bias, it just means that people may show this bias in different areas. Specifically, those areas in which their beliefs are the strongest. It’s no coincidence that the Duggars sought out some extremist religious homeschooling materials for their children that are in line with their own extremist beliefs, or that they only associate with other families that share their beliefs. It is simply an instance of confirmation bias.

It is clear that a religious group that is headed by influential male authorities could lead to the various symptoms of groupthink and encourage the Duggars to handle their son’s crimes in house, as well as to have put Josh Duggar in a position where he did not feel that he could communicate his deviant thoughts and feelings with his religious parents. In addition, confirmation bias helped to keep the Duggars in the dark. As they acted to keep their kids safe from the “evils” of the world with their brand of authoritarian parenting, they invited the devil right in the front door.

Come back on Thursday for the conclusion of the Duggar scandal series!

NOTE: I would be remiss to not mention that some research has called the Groupthink theory into question, and that scientific results from lab studies do not always replicate all of the antecedents and results proposed by Janis and colleagues. While the laboratory evidence does not always support all of the tenants of the theory, it is obvious that this process plays out in some form based on the many real-life examples that scientists invoke to discuss the theory, such as launching the Challenger in less than ideal conditions, despite warnings from the engineers about the temperature.⁸

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 73(2), 116-141.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), 323-341.

Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539-550.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175.

Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). 4 Confirmation bias. Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory, 79.

Munro, G. D., & Stansbury, J. A. (2009). The dark side of self-affirmation: Confirmation bias and illusory correlation in response to threatening information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 73(2), 105-115.

Posted by

Jen

Posted on

February 14, 2015

Posted under

Psych, Sad World, Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

Beyond the hate crime binary: Implicit bias in the Chapel Hill shooting

This post was co-written by Jen and guest blogger Cara, a city and regional planning student and social justice activist.

The recent triple murder of three Muslim Americans Yusor Abu-Salha, Deah Barakat, and Razan Abu-Salha in Chapel Hill on Tuesday night has rocked the Triangle, and its effects have reverberated across the globe. In addition to the devastating sadness and feelings of staggering unfairness precipitated by this horrific crime, the motive of the killer and whether the act was a hate crime is also being debated.

Craig Stephen Hicks, a 46 year old neighbor of Yusor, Deah, and Razan, has been charged with three counts of first degree murder after turning himself in to authorities. He and his lawyer claim that he killed them because of a parking dispute that escalated into violence, but a lot of people aren’t buying it. And neither are we.

Deah’s sister has asked that their murders be treated as a hate crime. Yusor and Razan’s brother believes the same. We also believe that this tragedy was motivated by anti-Muslim feelings and hate. This crime may not fit the legal definition of a hate crime, but that doesn’t preclude it from being one.

The debate over whether this fits the definition of a hate crime has to do with whether or not Hicks explicitly voiced his prejudice against Muslim people. His Facebook page has numerous posts where he mocks religion as an idea – Hicks is an adamant atheist – and a few where he calls out specific groups, such as a post calling Christians opposed to the building of a mosque near ground zero hypocritical, and another re-post that says if financial aid, mediation, and arms cannot bring peace to the Middle East, atheism can. But though he is a proud gun owner – he brags in one post about the weight of one of his loaded guns – he doesn’t seem to have expressed violent intentions toward Muslims specifically. The FBI is looking into it, but regardless of whether they find anything, the motivation seems to be clear.

Most people are more familiar with types of explicit prejudice or explicit bias. People who are explicitly prejudiced against Muslims, for example, know they are biased and may make statements to that effect or pointedly treat Muslim people differently than they would other people. This type of prejudice is also much less likely to be condoned in society. However, a deeper hidden kind of prejudice called implicit bias can guide people’s actions and thoughts even if they don’t consciously believe that they are biased.

Implicit bias is more likely what’s at play here. Implicit bias is an automatic stereotype or prejudice that someone maintains without necessarily being aware of it.¹ Social psychologists have been studying implicit biases and their effects on behavior and society for years. These biases are so deeply ingrained and automatic that they often don’t reach the surface of consciousness, and yet may still guide our actions and behavior.²

Hicks’s wife claims that in her husband’s eyes “everyone is equal.” The fact that our implicit biases run so deep that we often aren’t even aware of them makes them particularly insidious, because here’s the thing: Hicks can genuinely believe that he didn’t target Deah, Yusor, and Razan because of their religion, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Even if he wasn’t thinking about the fact that his victims were Muslims in the front of his mind, somewhere in his brain, the automatic part was looping a tape full of subtle but powerful beliefs and stereotypes that more likely than not allowed this disagreement to escalate dramatically.

Some evidence does exist to suggest that Hicks wasn’t simply a grumpy disgruntled neighbor but was actually targeting this family because of their religion. Namely, one of Razan’s best friends stated that Hicks didn’t bother Deah at all until his new wife and her sister came to live with him, two women who looked more traditionally Muslim with their hijabs than did Deah. Deah and Yusor’s relatives also offered previous incidents where Hicks threatened Deah and Yusor over their alleged noisiness while carrying his shotgun. Would he have approached these situations in the same way had Deah, Yusor, and Razan not been Muslim? Our guess is no.

There is no way to prove that implicit biases motivated or fed this crime, which feels incredibly frustrating. It also forebodes an increased misunderstanding if the families of the victims and the community at large see a hate crime here, but authorities cannot prove it. We believe that it is essential to get a discussion of not just explicit hate speech and discrimination but an understanding of implicit biases as well into the societal dialogue—implicit bias can also likely help to explain the Mike Brown shooting and other crimes across racial and cultural lines committed by people who swear they “see everyone equally.”

So, how does this directly affect you, and what can you do in your own life? Most implicit biases are on a smaller minor scale. They don’t result in a triple homicide, but that doesn’t mean they’re harmless. Every implicit bias affects people’s daily interactions. If you’ve ever taken a social psychology class, you’ve likely learned about the Implicit Association Test (or the IAT). The IAT is a free online test that allows anyone to measure their own implicit biases for all different groups ranging from race to age to sexual orientation. I encourage all of you to take it here. Note that the IAT has its own flaws—it is not to be used as a diagnostic tool. If the test finds that you have a preference for white people over black people, you are not destined to be a racist. Rather, such a result indicates several possible outcomes: 1) you are implicitly biased against black people, 2) you are aware of the bias against black people in the society where you’ve grown up, which is reflected in your result, or 3) some combination of the two.

Despite the imperfection of the IAT, its results can offer some insight into your psyche. This awareness is just the beginning. Start by taking the IAT, see what comes up. Then get comfortable with the idea that your very own brain may harbor implicit biases toward one or more groups. Especially if you are a person who says you “see everyone equally” or some such platitude, question the meanings behind your snap reactions or judgments of others. Try to notice patterns or be more deliberate in your interactions with others. Research exists to support the idea that people can change their automatic beliefs³, so your efforts will likely not be in vain.

In no way whatsoever is this discussion intended to relieve Hicks of any guilt or to place blame on any of his victims. Rather, it’s to suggest that the current definition of a hate crime requiring explicit prejudicial statements is outdated and too simplistic given what we know about implicit biases. Furthermore, understanding implicit biases can help us get past the racist vs. not-racist narrative and understand that people do what they do for much more complicated reasons than they themselves might even realize.

¹Devine (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

²Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.

³ Monteith, Ashburn-Nardo, Voils, & Czopp (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029-1050.

Posted by

Jen

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

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.

Posted by

Mallory

Posted on

February 1, 2015

Posted under

Psych in Sum

Comments

10 Comments

Super Bowl Sunday: The Social Psych Perspective

Image from AZSuperbowl

About a third to a half of America’s population tunes in to the Super Bowl every year. That may not seem surprising, but the wildly popular American Idol only pulled in about 30 million viewers in its best years. A huge amount to be sure, but it pales in comparison to the Super Bowl’s 110 million (give or take).* Social psychologists may not be surprised about the popularity of the Super Bowl, given our tendency to invest ourselves deeply in sports.

In a famous study at Ohio State University, Robert Cialdini and colleagues found that students wore OSU clothing more following a win than after a loss.¹ They also noticed that people were more likely to use “we” language (i.e. “we won”) when the team performed well, and were more likely to use “they” language when the team performed poorly (i.e. “they lost”).¹ This phenomenon is often referred to as Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing) and Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORFing).² However, there is some evidence that die-hard fans may not engage in CORFing, suggesting they have more dedication to the team.³

So enjoy those wings, call some couch plays and no matter the outcome (***cough, cough*** Patriots win ***cough, cough***), don’t be a fair-weather fan!

*EDIT-on a good year! These stats do include worldview viewership, but worldwide viewership is notoriously low

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, R. J., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34, 366-375.

Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 626-631.

Sloan, L. R. (1979). “The function and impact of sports for fans: A review of theory and contemporary research.” Pp.219-262 in J. H. Goldstein (00.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Posted by

Jen

Posted on

January 12, 2015

Posted under

Psych in Sum

Comments

Leave a comment

Self-Control and Eating: Which counts more, health or taste?

Could the time it takes you to process taste- and health-related characteristics of food predict the final food decision you’ll make? A study recently published in the journal Psychological Science¹ would suggest so. The study examined the hypothetical food decisions of 28 male and female undergraduates using a mouse tracking task, which captured both the time and trajectory of participants’ decisions. See image below of the task and sample trajectory results.

Participants low in dietary self-control processed tastiness of a food significantly faster than healthiness of a food before making a final food decision. The researchers suggest that the earlier a factor like taste is processed while making a decision, the more heavily weighted that factor will be in someone’s final decision. Health-related attributes (e.g. calories), on the other hand, are delayed in the decision-making process and won’t be as strongly considered in the decision-making process. For example, someone low in dietary self-control who has a weak spot for gooey fudge brownies will immediately think about how delicious and sweet the brownies will be rather than their relative unhealthiness, and this deliciousness factor will be the strongest and loudest factor when that person decides whether to eat the brownies. Knowing this, no one is surprised when the brownies win the majority of the time.

In contrast, participants high in self-control processed tastiness and healthiness at approximately the same time, making both attributes relatively balanced when making a food decision, which may explain why those high in dietary self-control are more often successful when trying to exert self-control in a food situation.

Based on these findings, the researchers suggest the following implications:

Delaying a food decision, even by a small waiting period, may be enough time to allow health factors to influence a final decision more strongly
Interventions that can increase speed with which health information is processed may improve dietary self-control.
Marketing strategies that display health attributes more prominently may promote faster processing of health attributes

To read the original article, check out the citation below.

1- Sullivan, N., Hutcherson, C., Harris, A., & Rangel, A. (2014). Dietary self-control is related to the speed with which attributes of healthfulness and tastiness are processed. Psychological Science. Advance online publication. 1-13. doi: 10.1177/0956797614559543

Posted by

Mallory

Posted on

December 23, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 8

Image from BostInno

Now that we know that brands have human characteristics, like personality, let’s talk about how we form relationships with brands. When I was little, my mother always used Aunt Jemima’s pancake mix. Now that I buy my own groceries (bummer), I always buy the same, because I’ve had a long relationship with the Aunt Jemima brand. It also makes delicious pancakes, but I digress. Relationships with brands can be significant for many reasons. The reason I just mentioned is related to nostalgia, or family ties, but you can also imagine relationships with brands being significant because they remind you of certain friends, or they make you feel good. Any way you slice it, maintaining relationships with customers is big business.

Customer relationship management, or CRM, has become key to managing a business. CRM is a way that a company can track an individual customer’s information, preferences and habits in such a way that the company can more effectively market to the individual, as well as retain him or her for future business. But before we form a relationship with a brand, we need to have a good idea of its identity. A company’s identity is composed of consumer perceptions and beliefs about company characteristics, consumer affective responses to the company and impressions of the company’s values.¹

While there is a great deal of research on brand relationships, we are going to focus on a case study of compromised brand relationships: American Apparel. This year, Dov Charney, founder and former CEO of American Apparel was fired not once, but twice. For the fashion-obsessed among us, Charney’s bad behavior has long been discussed in relation with American Apparel and their sexualized advertising. In fact, Dov Charney’s sexual misconduct was first reported in 2004, when Charney engaged in some self-satisfaction during an interview with a female reporter. Since then, Charney has been sued by former employees for sexual harassment or misconduct no less than 7 times.

So why fire him now, 10 years after the first reports? Well, a lot of industry insiders think it’s because Charney finally ruined American Apparel’s relationship with its customers. Charney’s behavior was so well-publicized, and led to so much public disdain, that many people transferred these feelings about Charney to feelings about American Apparel. He compromised the brand’s identity by infusing it too much with his own, making it so that shoppers could not help but think about unwanted advances when they were supposed to be shopping for crop tops. And American Apparel’s board was probably right, because American Apparel was hemorrhaging money at the end of 2013, with a total loss of $106 million, a sign of a declining customer base.

Brand relationships are incredibly important, and many of the things we’ve discussed, like brand communities or brand personalities, work to build and support relationships with consumers. Think about the brands you buy, and the way you feel about them. It may surprise you that they’re more than just products, they’re old friends.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.

Posted by

Mallory

Posted on

December 22, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 7

Brands themselves can take on human characteristics. We often discuss brands and companies with words like, “caring,” “corrupt,” “smart,” or “innovative.” Commercials and advertising work to solidify or disabuse customers of these impressions, using imagery and language to massage customer opinions. And it works! Let’s see how easy it is to choose the correct adjective to describe a company.

Which of these brands is…1) Sophisticated, 2) Competent, 3) Active, 4) Laid-back?*

You probably knew right away if you have any experience with these brands or their advertising (or you can find the answers at the bottom of this page). This quiz deals with something called brand personality, which is much like a person’s personality. In personality psychology, human personalities revolve around the so-called Big 5: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.¹ The vast majority of human characteristics can be explained with some version of these 5 traits. But these same 5 factors do not hold for brands.²

Jennifer Aaker identified 5 different characteristics that define brand personality: Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness.³ It is fairly easy to think of examples of these types of brands. Hallmark makes money off of their sincerity, and Mountain Dew still exists because of its ruggedness. But much like human personality, there are cross-cultural differences in which traits are most prized in brands. For instance, sincerity is appreciated in the US, Japan and Spain, while ruggedness is appreciated more in the US than in other countries.⁴

Brand personalities affect us in many ways. They drive our brand impressions, they form our brand evaluations and they contribute to our brand relationships. Marketers can harness this information to sell us goods. So, the next time that Publix commercial makes you cry, just remember that Publix is sincere and competent, and they want you to know it.

* Answers: A-1, B-3, C-4, D-2

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: how to make the metaphor fit?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377-395.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: