Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect is a phenomenon by which observers of an emergency situation are less likely to offer assistance to a victim when others are present. The relationship between the number of observers and the likelihood of aid being offered are directly inverse, where the greater the crowd, the less likely someone is to stop and render aid.

Social psychologists believe that the phenomena is tied to three main processes: noticing, interpretation, and taking responsibility. Noticing is often impacted by cultural conditioning. Western society holds that staring is rude, so in social situations, individuals are far more likely to keep their attention to themselves, which may prevent them from noticing the problem in the first place. Once the situation has succeeded in catching a bystanders notice, they then must interpret the situation as requiring intervention. In large crowds, individuals often take clues from the actions of others, so if no one is acting, the individual is far less likely to buck the trend and intervene (which can be a seen as conformity via social proof). The final hurdle is that in larger groups, individuals are far more likely to believe that someone else will handle the problem, which often means that no one is willing to step in and take responsibility.

Unfortunately, this can lead to things like this happening:

Here, it is a set up and no one is actually harmed, but in one famous case, Kitty Genovese was stabbed and left for dead while more than 20 people just watched. Some Social Psychologists cite this story as being grossly inflated as to the effect of the bystander effect, but in a more recent case, a homeless man was stabbed after coming to the aid of a woman being mugged. In his case, people walked over and around him as he died (one even took pictures) but no one stopped to offer any aid.

Aggression

 Aggression is any action intended to cause harm to a person or thing. The key here is intent. If you throw a plate at someone and it misses their head, it's still technically aggression because you meant to cause harm. If you punch a wall, it's still aggression because you damaged a wall. But if you drop the plate on someone's head or trip and put your fist through a wall, it isn't aggression because the damage was unintentional.

Subdivisions of the broader term fall into three categories:

• Hostile aggression
• Instrumental aggression
• Relational aggression

Hostile aggression is the most commonly thought of form of aggression.

Here, the smaller boy acts aggressively, striking the larger boy several times.  When the bullied child retaliates, he also responds aggressively, dropping the bully and inflicting harm as well.

Instrumental aggression is more commonly found in sporting events and military campaigns.

When the players tackle another player, the intent is not necessarilty to cause harm to the player, but rather to ensure that their team mate is able to advance the ball. While harm may result, it is not the sole intent of the action.

Finally, relational aggression is harming someone by attacking their relationships with others.

In this clip, Regina faces exclusion from her friends by virtue of wearing the wrong clothing. This form of aggression is more commonly associated with women as opposed to hostile aggression which is often associated with men.  

Just World Theory

 The persistence of belief in a Just World is a cognitive bias that people maintain that asserts that kindness and morally correct actions are rewarded and immoral or corrupt actions are punished. The English language is rife with axioms to this effect:

• You reap what you sow.
• What goes around, comes around.
• You got your just desserts.

The Social Psychologist Melvin Learner is the most commonly associated researcher in relation to this topic. He saw his work as an expansion on Stanley Milgram's work with obedience. During his studies, he theorized the belief in a just world where actions have understandable expected consequences. He further asserted that this belief was essential in the maintenance of their self-worth.

When confronted with numerous examples of pain and suffering and hunger and war, people need to believe that there is a reason for what happens. If there is no reason, then they are as likely to suffer as anyone else.

By maintaining their belief in a just world, they can convince themselves that they aren't as likely to be affected by the vagaries of chance. The downside to this theory is that it tends to encourage victim blaming as it necessitates having a reason for whatever negative event or outcome occurs. In the following clip from The Dark Knight, the civilians on board the ferry are following the Just World Theory.

 

When the woman on the civilian ferry states that "Those men had their chance," she seems to imply that they deserve to be killed because they're already criminals and that their death is a result of their bad choices rather than the result of a conscious choice by someone on the civilian ferry. If the decision is made to detonate the bomb and kill the prisoners, the just world theory allows the button pusher to distance them self from their action, removing the vulnerability of their position by making a choice.

Scapegoat Theory

 History is rife with examples of scapegoating in action:

 In Hebrew culture, the scapegoat was an actual animal and the sins of the group were shed onto the animal during the Day of Atonement and that animal was then driven out to die in the wilderness.


Ancient Greeks would choose a beggar or cripple or criminal (they called them pharmakos) to be cast out of society as a result of a natural disaster or major catastrophe.
 

Henry VIII scapegoated his wives, blaming them for his inability to sire a healthy, male heir.

The witch burnings were another pretty good example: Take a group of people who exist outside of acceptable societal norms (often female and unmarried or widowed, frequently in possession of enough material wealth to preclude remarriage, in possession of "otherworldly" knowledge), add a dash of fear and Voila! A concrete group to blame for any and all societal ills.

And then there were the Jews. Jews were (and still are in some parts of the world) a popular group for blame, most notably, their persecution during WWII. By dehumanizing an entire group, the Nazi party was able to successfully project all the hurts and dissatisfaction carried over from the First World War onto a group of people that were just as likely to be suffering under the economic depression as the average Christian German.

One of the weirder scapegoating episodes I remember from history class was the persecution of cats as familiars of the devil. Pope Gregory IX told people that cats were diabolical and in 1232 encouraged people to slaughter them as a way to drive out demonic forces and influence. Ironically enough, some researchers point to the slaughter of domesticated cats as a reason that the spread of the plague was so virulent.

Even "modern" media makes much of this idea: shows like The Honeymooners and movies like Apocalypse Now feature reoccurring themes of scapegoating as characters struggle to obtain their goals.

In nearly every culture and nearly every period of history, someone was blaming someone else for their misfortune.

Psychology takes this idea and explores  the why behind the practice.

Exploring Social Psychology has this to say of the Scapegoat Theory:

"Frustration (the blocking of a goal) often evoke hostility. 

When the cause of our frustration is intimidating or unknown, 

we often redirect our hostility." (p261)

That seems fairly straightforward, right? Everyone wants to be able to explain things. When they can't point to something directly, they get angry and as the anger grows the need for a target does as well. The oldest book of the bible is totally centered on this idea. The military uses the axiom "shit rolls downhill." Every child does it to a sibling or a pet. Girls do it when they get dumped. Boys do it when they're defeated. It's the reason for self-handicapping.

People want a concrete thing to point at when things go wrong.

Hang on, let me repeat that again.

People want a concrete thing to point at when things go wrong. 

We want to have that Aha! moment. We need somewhere to aim our feelings. 

In scapegoat theory however, the finger is pointed out at an external object and the person/group is able to do something about it. In a way, it's a more active form of self serving bias. By actively seeking to place blame for failures on a scapegoat, we are able to more easily retain a favorable self image and a higher sense of self esteem.

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping

Definition time! (All definitions taken from dictionary.com, a site I love because it gives more than just the definition. Awesome!)

prej·u·dice

[prej-uh-dis], verb, prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing.

noun

1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5.damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

verb (used with object)

6.to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

Idiom

7.without prejudice, Law . without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand.

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English  < Old French  < Latin praejūdicium  prejudgment, orig. preliminary or previous judicial inquiry, equivalent to prae- pre-  + jūdicium  legal proceedings, judging ( jūdic-,  stem of jūdex judge  + -ium -ium)

dis·crim·i·na·tion

[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] 

noun

1.an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating  judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4.Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

Origin:
1640–50;  < Latin discrīminātiōn-  (stem of discrīminātiō ) a distinguishing. See discriminate, -ion

ster·e·o·type

[ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-], noun, verb, ster·e·o·typed, ster·e·o·typ·ing.

noun

1.a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mâché or other material and then taking from this mold a cast in type metal.

2.a plate made by this process.

3.a set form; convention.

4.Sociology . a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.

verb (used with object)

5.to make a stereotype of.

6.to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.

7.to give a fixed form to.

Origin:
1790–1800; stereo-  + -type

 

 

Alright, that's done. 

 

I include the dictionary definition simply because I think it's important that all the meanings of each word are apparent and easy to refer back to. These words are often used interchangeably even thought they mean different things (much like robbery and burglary). So, a quick explanation that's as much for me as for anyone: Prejudices are based on feelings, discrimination is based on action and stereotypes are based on beliefs. Stereotypes may feed into the development of prejudices. You can have prejudice without discrimination. You can't have discrimination without prejudice.  Stereotypes don't have to be negative and just because they're stereotypes doesn't mean that they aren't also true. The issue is in accepting that even if they apply to 99% of the group, they won't work 100% of the time. There are ALWAYS outliers. 

 

The following videos present pretty good examples of these three forces in action, but each presents the scenario in an interesting way.  

 

Here the woman holds certain beliefs (stereotypes) about the fact that black men are something to be feared (though it could be said that the fear is not specifically black men but rather all men-- though the purse thing is probably more race specific). Her beliefs foster negative feelings for the man sharing the elevator (prejudice) and prompt her to alter her behavior (discrimination) as she shifts her body and her belongings away from the perceived threat and into a more protected space*.

In this video, the same type of process is occurring, but the reasoning behind the prejudice is reversed. The man in the ball cap holds certain beliefs about the man in the suit (stereotypes), these beliefs create a basis for his feelings (prejudice) which motivate his action (discrimination). In this example the prejudice is against people that the man in the ball cap perceives as being "too good" for him because he perceives them as "acting too white".

To be fair, the narrator of each video is not blameless. He makes broad assertions about groups of people based on his interactions with a sample of each group, but this is often a hazard of being a part of humanity. 

I suppose that the point isn't that we stop doing it, so much as we become more aware of the fact that we do it at all. Perhaps by being more aware of our patterns of thought and behavior, we can hope to curb some of the less advantageous aspects of each. 

*That's a sort of separate rant all together, that women (and men to a certain extent) exist in a constant state of fear and the fact that society continues to perpetuate victim blaming and fear mongering attitudes, choosing to espouse the idea that people shouldn't put themselves in a position of encouraging rape rather than encouraging people to JUST NOT RAPE!)

Cognitive Dissonance

So we know that cognitive dissonance is when an attitude and a behavior conflict and create mental dissonance. That makes as much sense as any explanation for the complexity of the thought/behavior relation. Where we run into trouble is that the human mind needs a way to reduce the dissonance because, lets face it, dissonance-- even when it's only mental-- is not fun to do.

Now, as with any dissonance, there are two options for easing it. Option A: Quit having kids. Simple, easy, cheap. Totally the better option in terms of maintaining a firm grasp on the reality of the situation. But... Then the species dies out. Well. So. That won't work. Hmm... Option B: Convince yourself that being a parent is totally worth it. The baby is cute, you'll get unconditional love, they won't be helpless forever, eventually they'll return the favor, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

So realistically, the only way to reduce the dissonance is to convince out brains that parenting doesn't suck as much as it actually does (or for the more fair minded, that the benefits are worth the downsides). As much as I hate the mom-petition of 'my kids are better than your kids' and 'you wouldn't understand, you're not a parent' it turns out that there's a reason they happen.

Apparently, parenting is one of the greatest acts of cognitive dissonance in which human beings engage.

Check it out!

Crazy right? (if you have time to kill, the series that this comes out of-- Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life-- is totally worth a look too).

So, we continue to perpetrate an act that has been proven to be detrimental to both physical and mental health. Why? Is the continuation of our species so important that it's worth the sacrifice of our mental status?

As a mom, I should say yes. After all, aren't I culpable of perpetrating the act myself? Yeah. I totally am. Twice no less. Perhaps that's the beauty of Cognitive Dissonance. That it makes it possible to find a way to manufacture happiness in spite of the fact that research indicates otherwise.

My children drive me mad on a daily basis and some days I want nothing more than to go back seven years and smack my younger self. But... And it's a big one: I still love my children with everything I have. So if my love for them is a product of Cognitive Dissonance and synthetic happiness, then I suppose I'm OK with that.

Gender Roles

In honor of Halloween and the grand tradition of dressing up as whatever or whoever we want--

 *ehem*

--I'd like to--

*ehem*

What? You mean we can't do that? Even on a day where we pretend to be something we're not, gender roles (for the purpose of this entry, gender is between your ears and sex is between your legs, right? Right! Good.) still hold sway?

Bummer. For this little boy, the expectations tied to his gender (a socially constructed term tied to biological expression of sex. Well... generally. Disgendered individuals and gender roles is a whole different ballgame) trump his personal desire to the extent that he and his mother were heaped with both derision and acclaim for their choice of Halloween attire.And the worst part is that we do it to our kids from the very beginning. Gender neutral clothing is often difficult to find or overly plain, and the pressure to find out sex while pregnant is fierce.

--As an aside, did you know that originally, pink was for boys and blue was for girls? Pink was seen as a form of red and as such too potent for females while blue was heavily associated with the Virgin Mary. The painting above is King Louis XV. 

Traditionally, men were believed to possess one set of attributes and attitudes and women were believed to have another separate set. The two were supposed to be complimentary, but not the same and individuals that violated them often experienced significant social pressure to conform.

Today, when you think about what makes a man versus what makes a woman, there are still characteristics that are seen as predominantly male and predominantly female. Even some insults continue the trend of clearly delineating good and bad along what is perceived as male/female. When someone gets too emotional, they're sometimes told to 'man up', implying that they're acting too female and female=bad. 'Throwing like a girl' is still largely negative even though female athletes are becoming more and more common. If you stop and think about it, a large number of insults are specifically tied to the female anatomy. I could list some, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

As we evolve as a culture, gender roles (the set of behavioral norms determined by a persons gender) still hold sway even as roles have to change to keep pace. That is not to say that they haven't changed, but they definitely haven't gotten anywhere close to a true equality. Today, it is nearly impossible to live comfortably on a single income, necessitating that both parents work.

Even when a woman works outside of the home, the idea of the mother as caretaker is still prevalent. The Kelly Ripa Electrolux ads even reinforces this idea by insinuating that even as a financial provider, it remains the woman's responsibility to act as hostess, maintain a clean home and provide healthy fresh meals for her family.

 

 


Look,  I realize that the bulk of this post makes it sound like I'm some kind of bitter man hating feminist, but that's not what I'm going for. I'm not saying that men aren't held back from certain experiences by virtue of their gender, that was the entire point of the Daphne article, but my own personal experience is as a woman and heavily influenced as such.