12/16/13-12/17/13: 29 straight hours on campus…

Posted on by anele25

On this break from school, I’ve realized how much I’ve come to appreciate this time I have off. I am going through all the songs on my iPod and it is quite the journey. With this time off, I’ve also been able to catch up on some wrestling matches and catch up with some old friends. The best part has been the ability to go to the gym 5 days out of the day and I must say I keep thinking in the back of my head to this one day almost a month ago. As finals were approaching, I knew a few things were possible. The first was that the library was open all night for students to study and my dilemma was that I had four finals in two days. The first final was for Human Factors which was simple because it was cumulative and it had basic questions relating to the field instead of specific questions that had been previously inserted into exams. However, as the day approached even closer on Monday December 16th 2013, I found myself putting up Christmas lights when I should have been studying for my finals. I helped my dad out on that end and as the hours dwindled down to the eventual hour there was one more thing to do: work. I had thought that I worked at 8 in the evening but that was not to be the case and I was almost an hour ate because I had read the schedule wrong. I ended up working less than 5 hours that night and my supervisors that night didn’t seem to mind me being late. I kept thinking in the back of my head about the next day’s proceedings and what I needed to do in order to get A’s in my classes. After my shift, I decided to help out one of my co-workers with his truck that had lost power in the battery. I stuck around with him until AAA showed up. That made me feel really well because a) I had helped a friend out, b) I let out quite a bit of what was on my plate for the next day, and c) I gave my thoughts on some issues. I headed home and knew I had to sleep really well that night because there hardly be any sleep that night. In the morning, I was filled with anxiety and humor at the same time because I would either make a fool of myself or be fearful of the results of my exams. I decided to take VTA all the way to school via the 55 that passes by house and the 522 on El Camino. As the bus chugged on, I was listening to the great Bryan Alvarez discuss the Phoenix Lights phenomena that deals with aliens and I thought to myself ‘well this is off to a strange and fun start’. When I got to school and inside the classroom for my first final, my professor pulled me aside and asked me questions about what I meant about some of the comments that I had made in a previous class meeting. The comments I made were about subgroups and how some of these groups are hardly ever studied. The groups that are hardly ever studied in this case (Asians and college students) can be used to expand our knowledge in the field of psychology of prejudice. I told her about my thoughts on ingroups and outgroups and about a lit review that I had written about the topic (which by the way you can read on this blog:)). She said that she found my comments interesting and insightful and I told her about my still being somewhat prejudice and her class had actually assisted me in becoming aware of these prejudices. I thanked her for class and so I sat down and took the final. As I zipped through the final, I knew I would be all right for the next 28 hours. I finished the final and started studying for my social psychology final for a few hours. However, I also had a final in my writing class which was simple as it was just an evaluation and a term paper test which was optional if you wanted a better grade (which I ended up taking anyway). I took that which took about an hour and a half and I thanked my professor for the hard work he had put into the class and I told him I would see him soon. At this point, I got super hungry and headed over to La Victoria. I ate for about an hour and I had committed to meeting a classmate at the library prior to this so I headed over right  after I had checked a few fantasy football scores. I met my friend at about 8 in the evening and we talked more than we studied and what was nice was that we discussed almost everything except the kitchen sink. I told him about some of the things I found fascinating in Social Psychology and he told me that he was planning on going into graduate school. He was a very nice guy with a good attitude. We ended up talking about the essay questions that would be on the exam and I kept giving him examples in real life about mere presence theory, love styles, group processes, violence, aggression, and the rest of the fascinating concepts that wound up on our final exam. After a few hours, I realized that my classmate had some very interesting stories to share and this is where I set my goal to be someone that should start a casual conversation with strangers and not be afraid to see what they think of you. I am good at this but  I want to become a master of this concept. I had randomly started a conversation with this guy the week before the final and I said this is worth the risk so I said to myself that I would start being like that.  The studying aside, I thanked my now friend for his help and I told him about my intentions of staying on campus for the entire night. I headed up the third floor of the king library and I made a little camp by the corner. I decided that a little shut eye might be good for cognitive functioning and I tried my best that night to sleep but as hard as I tried I couldn’t sleep. I listened to a few podcasts that night and they kept me entertained for the most part. However, the music that was blaring out of my headphones was also helpful as the concepts of social psychology were clogging my mind at that time. At some point in the  night, I went under a desk and cuddled up which was harder to do since I am a very tall individual. I remember someone coming by and saying ‘oh my god’ which I assume was a remark at me sleeping under the desk. I lay there for a few hours and started to wonder the intricacies of the day ahead of me. I imagined meeting up with a few friends the day after which seemed so far away. I also thought about my family and how they were doing. I looked out the window soon after this and noticed people were coming and leaving from the library but I believed I was in the right spot despite being away from home at this point for almost 12 hours. The hour started nearing for my third final and around 6 AM I decided to head over to House of Bagels and grab some breakfast which I would need to concentrate. I ended up grabbing hot chocolate and a turkey bagel which helped out tremendously at that point. I decided to head back to the library in the somewhat dense weather and I spotted one of my friends that would be taking the same final in that morning. I once again told him about the finals that I had endured and he expressed his experience with his finals which was reassuring that we’re all going through the same stress and emotions. I told my friend that we should celebrate some day after and he agreed. Once we headed down, I saw another friend from the same class and we talked about the craziness that was ahead of us. As we walked over, I felt this accomplishment of having finished my first semester of San Jose State without many problems and I said to myself ‘I should have the same mentality every time’ and I sat down next to the classroom and chatted with my friends about some of the things on the test. I pondered what was to come on the test and my nerves settled once the test was put in front of me. I saw the test and knew most of the concepts which got me thinking of the last final soon there after. The test was nothing too hard and I headed once again to the library but this time I knew I needed some rest. I studied my Nutrition study guides for about an hour before I decided that was maybe time for a nap. I remember the concept of bio fuels to be the easiest to remember and as I went through this I figured this final would be really easy because most of the concepts were common sense. It dealt with population figures, organic farming, pesticides, and a few other concepts that we learned in high school in biology. Once I woke up, I got a text from one of my friends asking me about finals and I told her I had been on campus since the day before (at this point I had been on campus for 21 straight hours). I headed over to my friend’s location to chat it up a bit and we had a ball discussing baseball and life. I also told her about my desire to get back into video games. She told about some of the games she played and I was getting excited just hearing about this. The conversation was great and we even ran into one of our friends from work which added some dynamic to that day. I walked back eventually and I said to myself ‘you’re almost there man’. I studied for a few hours (including a nap in there for good measure) and I knew after about the 20th time looking after my notes that I was ready for this. It was 5:15 when it I readied myself for the final and all of a sudden Hanson’s ‘Fire on The Mountain’ blazed on the iPod and this got me hyped up. I walked steadily over to the BBC and I sat there blazing through the final which believe it or not was my hardest final. It wasn’t hard based on the material but it wasn’t my area of expertise so I had quite the challenge ahead of me. I knew the concepts but I had to think when I answered the questions which isn’t common on Psychology tests. I went through the questions twice and as soon I picked up my things I said my peace to my professor and thanked her for a conversation we had earlier in the semester. I walked out and let out some fresh air when I saw someone I knew but I hadn’t talked to her in a while. I went one way and she went the other. This was symbolic because I was going one way and this other person headed the other way. This meant to me that we each make our path in life and my path is to concentrate on what is important to me. I headed out to the bus stop and I was so proud of myself at this moment. I felt that the first semester was a success and I was thinking of all the possibilities that were ahead during the break. I have done a few things including cleaning up my closet, taking care of my nephew, playing video games, and even doing more exercise. I hope that with two weeks left I can head out to the movies one more time, head over to one of my favorite restaurants, and walk the Los Gatos Trail. I’m also in the process of going through my 4000 songs on my iPod and it has been quite the adventure hearing almost every artist I’ve come across. One last thing left to accomplish is to put up my latest project 365 as I am two months behind and it shouldn’t be difficult to put up as I hope to dedicate a full day to doing this. Be on the look out for that and we’ll see you in a while.

(Hey BTW final grades for Fall 2013)

Social Psychology: B

Nutrition: B+

Human Factors: A

Psych of Prejudice: A-

Writing Workshop for Psychology: A-

The big theme from my first semester at SJSU…

Posted on by anele25

It’s 2014 and after my first semester at San Jose State I feel excited and ready for the next challenge of my life at school. The first few weeks and last few weeks made me understand that school is an experience and if you want to live that experience you have to enjoy what you’re doing. The first thing that caught my eye was the idea about ingroups and outgroups. As I started reading about this in our assigned class readings, I noticed that Social and Prejudice pscyhology had a lot in common. So, throughout the first semester I wrote a Literature review about this research topic and I ended up learning about myself and the groups we form. Much of this is discussed in the paper and I thought I would post it here on this blog (
“Working man’s” comment: I got a 46/50 on this paper and I’m very proud of it)

Perception of Ingroups and Outgroups in the Present and Past

Jose Diaz

PSYC 100 W, Fall 2013, Section 05

San Jose State University

Word Count: 2,934 words

Ingroups and Outgroups from different perspectives

As individuals, we partake in groups as they assist in identifying who we are. Allport (1954) categorized individuals as being a part of ingroups and outgroups. The ingroup is the group you are in and the outgroup is the one you are not part of. Early research on ingroups and outgroups was generally based on Blacks and Whites. For example, Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff and Ruderman (1978) conducted an experiment exposing the perception of race. In the experiment, Black and White people were having a conversation and participants were able to tell the race of a person but not the exact identity of the individual. The same study also found that the stereotypes of Black and White people can be processed automatically. Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park (2001) studied this effect by measuring people’s stereotypes with the task of flashing several words on a computer screen. The results by Wittenbrink et al. (2001) showed statistically significant evidence for automatic stereotyping with the process of the word Black being flashed and participants associating the word with negative stereotypes of the race (e.g. threatening, dishonest, and lazy). However, the word White was associated with more positive stereotypes of the race such as responsible, ambitious, and wealthy. The perception of an ingroup and an outgroup early on in research found that the positive stereotypes were seen in the dominant group at the time but recently there have been studies done on other groups. The groups that are to be examined in this review are bullies, college students, Asian Americans, and students taking part in a dot counting task. The purpose in this review is to further understand the necessary components of an ingroup and an outgroup in other avenues of research. I found that recent research has several parallels to studies done in the past (e.g. ingroup bias, group paradigms, and perspective approach) giving ideas for future studies. While previous research has been on Blacks and Whites, bullies are one group of individuals that has been unexamined. The roles and the perception that individuals have are examined, thus, allowing the experiment to go in a few directions.                                              Huitsing and Veenstra (2012) conducted a study to analyze the processes of social networks and to explore bullying in a classroom setting (i.e. how the initiators dominated their victims and how well liked the bullies became in the classroom). Huitsing and Veenstra recruited 19 students from a middle school and administered a questionnaire to examine concepts in bully groups such as bullying, assisting, defending, and reinforcing. The students were asked to nominate as many of their peers as possible for bullying, assisting, or otherwise but the exception was that they could not nominate everyone for these roles. The questionnaire contained several descriptions of the bully group (assisting and bullying) and who was in the popular group (friendship and popularity).  The process of identifying the bully in the questionnaire was helpful to see everyone’s perception due to the varied roles to be taken on by classmates whether it was bullying or assisting.                                                                                                                                  Results indicated that there were three children who were identified as taking part in bullying and the study also found that the defending boys and girls groups’ results were statistically significant. However, friendship and popularity were not statistically significant with this group of three bullies. Huitsing and Veenstra (2012) found that a group of four was deemed to be the most popular within their own group. The result within this subgroup was that they defended within their own group and they were nominated for bullying and reinforcing as well. The researchers discovered that bullies did not want to lose status (e.g. popularity and dominance) by showing sympathy for their victims and the bullies chose to stay close to their own group of friends. The roles of bullies and defenders may change from one situation to the next due to the different victims that bullies pick out. Structure of the groups was defined by having ingroups and outgroups, both of which drew comparisons as to how we classify bullies and defenders in a situation (i.e. assisting and reinforcing the bullying in situations). Hamilton (1976) makes the distinction that as individuals, we point out our ingroup’s strengths as being flexible and open-minded defining this behavior as ingroup bias. Motivation generally plays a role in how individuals classify the ingroup they are a part of and they generally apply this to outgroups. In the next study, the researchers illustrated how different groups can apply motivation to the principle of ingroups and outgroups when it comes to perception.                                                                                                                                  The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between accepting someone from an outgroup and the impact that it had on one’s motivation to respond without prejudice. Kuntsman et al. (2013) also wanted to test the idea of putting personal needs behind and gaining some long-term goal. The term Kuntsman et al. used for the measure they were testing was Internal Motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS). Kunstman et al. recruited 40 White psychology students from Florida State University where the participants were to list two (easy condition) or ten situations (hard condition) in which they were accepted by Black people. Internal Motivation to respond without prejudice was predicted to be not as significant when a participant was to list ten situations in which Black people accepted them. Kunstman et al. added a second element to the same study which was a fabricated program named FSU Connect. After completing the first task, participants were asked in a ten-item questionnaire if they would be interested in joining FSU Connect; in the questionnaire they were also asked about interacting with students of different backgrounds and about the cost that would be included with the program in place.                          The participants’ results where they were asked to list two conditions in which they were accepted by Black people were statistically significant. Kunstman et al. affirmed that the more often participants were able to recall information, the more they would not be prejudiced against the outgroup. As it pertains to FSU Connect, the participants that had a better recall IMS had a more positive affirmation towards the program. Kunstman et al. found IMS as a significant predictor of participants wanting friendships and provoking interracial contact. The choice of playing a role in a group is a key component of motivation and the researchers suggest future research on this. An impending question asked by the researchers is if the interaction is authentic between majority and minority groups. The research on internal motivation does have some emphasis on it which gives evidence that it is more difficult to recall instances where one is accepted. In this case, how do individuals go about in situations where they have to identify themselves with a group and therefore have to stay consistent with those attitudes? Incidentally, a study was done by researchers exemplifying there need state and identification within a group.                                                                                                                                          The purpose of the study conducted by Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman (2002) was to examine self-stereotyping and the impact that it has on ingroups. Self-stereotyping is seen as a process whereby the individual begins to view themselves as being consistent with the stereotypes of their ingroups. The study was set up as a 3x2x2x2 factorial design with the following categories: need state, identification, ingroup status, and trait type. Each of these categories was classified with different levels that varied (i.e. high for ingroup status, stereotype irrelevant for trait type, and arousal for need). Testing to see how they would compare themselves with students from other college campuses, a total of 123 participants from Ohio State University completed the Self Attribution Questionnaire (SAQ) on their arousal level and the students were given fake feedback as to how they were identified. Each category as identified by Pickett et al. (e.g. need for assimilation, need for differentiation, and no need for arousal) had different scores that were either statistically significant or not depending on whether or not the numbers were above or below the mean.                                                                                                                                           Pickett et al. found that the students comparing themselves with other college students wanted close proximity with the ingroup and they wanted to keep their distance from the out group. The differentiation group and the assimilation group wanted to stay close to the ingroup but the differentiation group in particular wanted to get closer to the out group. The two need groups in the high-identity section were found by Pickett et al. to identify with the traits that were in the SAQ but this was not statistically significant for those in the low-identity group. Pickett et al. discovered that manipulation was significant as it had an impact on each group in the factorial design. Pickett et al did find what they were looking for in that the more one self-stereotyped the more likely the individual was high identifying within their own group. Lastly, when self-stereotypes are not in line with the ingroup’s beliefs, the identification one has can feel threatened. Identification, barring any other cofounding variables, has some effect on how individuals perceive a situation where they are a part of an ingroup. Perception, coupled with identification, gives credence as how to classify our judgments and understanding of other groups. As a result of perception, a study was conducted to examine how different groups of individuals would perceive a piece of film and how roles played a role in this instance.                                                                                                                  The purpose of the study by Shih, Wang, Trahan Bucher, and Stotzer (2009) was to see how empathy would apply to the Asian American outgroup members. Shih et al. also wanted to see how their empathy was as it related to a college applicant’s race. Shih et al. used 84 undergraduate students from the University of Michigan. The study used a 2×2 factorial design where there were the conditions of viewing (i.e. perspective and control) and the college applicants race (i.e. White or Asian). Participants viewed a scene from Joy Luck Club with the main character of the film explaining the problems of growing up in America as an Asian. The researchers then asked participants to either put themselves in the main character’s shoes and the feelings the character has but in the second instance, they were told to act as a newspaper critic giving their thoughts on the clip. Shih et al. then randomized the Asian or White college application for the participants to view and in this portion the name in the application was the same (Michael Young).                                                                                                                                    Results by Shih et al. found that participants who took the perspective approach were able to show more emphatic feelings. Participants that viewed the film clip from a perspective condition were more likely to view the Asian college applicant as more likeable as opposed to the participants in the control condition. In the control condition, participants were more likely to show more likeability towards the White applicant. Shih et al. found the manipulation of empathy to be moderately significant. The researchers bring up the point that their study may be limited because the usage of one film clip does not serve as sufficient evidence for the empathy factor. There is also the potential of empathy being used as an efficient tool to reduce prejudice attitudes in an ingroup and applying those improved attitudes towards an outgroup. However, if empathy is being used towards one particular group (Asians) then it would not be generalized towards other groups because of feelings of guilt and injustice towards the outgroup. On the whole, how a group of individuals viewed a particular applicant was of importance because of the different circumstances that were put forth. Ingroups and outgroups have been defined in studies done by Tajfel et al. (1971) as being minimal, meaning that just being a part of a group as a member has implications for how you favor your own group. This was demonstrated by an experiment where Tajfel et al. had participants do a dot counting task. Scores were not recorded for the task and participants were randomly assigned to a group. The results of the experiment were replicated in the next study.                                                                                                                                       The purpose of the DiDonato, Ulrich, and Krueger (2011) study was to explore an induction model that employs the minimal group paradigm. Their hypotheses were that participants would respond favorably to the ingroup, have a mixed reaction to the mixed group, and have a weak reaction to the out-group. DiDonato et al. used 70 male and female undergraduate students. The materials used for the experiment included a slideshow with paintings by two different artists and a second slideshow with dots. Participants were asked to estimate how many dots were shown (with four possible choices) as well being asked which set of paintings they preferred (Klee or Kandinsky). The participants proceeded to fill out a personality questionnaire with 20 items as it was described to them as being relative to the dot counting task. The results of the first part of the experiment came back to the participants where they were then told (a) to estimate the size of each group, (b) the endorsements of each group, and (c) to rate the overall similarity they had with each group.                                                                                                                          Results by DiDonato et al. found that the more distance there were between a person’s ingroup and another group, the more likely they would not project favorably to a mixed group or the outgroup. Self-judgments had a statistically significant impact on differentiation as ingroups differentiated towards outgroups but, the differentiation portion did not apply entirely to the mixed group. The results for ingroup favoritism were significant as the self was found to desire their own group and not to favor an outgroup or a mixed group. DiDonato et al. found no evidence for creating a self-image derived from describing one’s ingroup positively. From a theoretical perspective, DiDonato’s et al. research was in line with how individuals rank their ingroup, mixed group, and outgroup respectively in that order. Their estimation of positive self-image increasing because of projection was found to vary from one person to the next because of the influence of the different groups in the study. With the induction model being used as a basis for the experiment, the researchers had significant results and their hope was that future research can be done on groups. Much of the previous research that implemented the dot counting task has been replicated and Didonato et al. took note that being a part of one group can affect the perception of other outgroup                                                                                                                          Perception of ingroups and outgroups has varied significantly in the past few years. At first, studies were conducted to measure the various stereotypes that were associated with White and Black races. However, over recent time, various other groups have been studied to measure motivation, perception, identity, membership, and roles within these various groups. This was done in order to understand the perception of each individual and the manipulation of settings showed this. The groups that were studied showed that being close and having needs for a situation affects anxiety and the wanting to belong to a group.                                                                                          Ingroups and outgroups have a profound impact on how we as individuals view each other. Future studies on this hope to not only replicate the understandings of various ingroups and outgroups but also to further implement usage of different psychological factors. Some of these include empathy, differentiation, assimilation, the minimal group paradigm, and adjustment. Perception and anxiety play a role in this as we want to be able to enjoy the comforts of our own needs. Doing this requires being a part of a group as well as endorsing the group that one is a part of. To fully understand how ingroups and outgroups work, it is necessary to understand perception, needs, and awareness of membership in a group.

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford England: Addison-Wesley.

DiDonato, T. E., Ullrich, J., & Krueger, J. I. (2011). Social perception as induction and     inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and            differential accuracy. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 100(1), 66-83.      doi:10.1037/a0021051

Hamilton, D.L. (1976). Cognitive biases in the perception of social groups. In J.S. Carroll & J.W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp.81-93). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38(6), 494-509. doi:10.1002/ab.21438

Kunstman, J. W., Plant, E., Zielaskowski, K., & LaCosse, J. (2013). Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 105(3), 443-457. doi:10.1037/a0033082

Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 82(4), 543-562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.543

Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565-577. doi:10.1177/1368430209337463

Tajfel,  H., Flament,  C., Billig, K., & Bundy, R. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-175.

Taylor, S., Fiske, S., Etcoff, N., & Ruderman, A. (1978). “Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (7): 778–793.

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Evaluative versus conceptual judgments in automatic stereotyping and prejudice. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 244-252. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1456