Q. 1 Elaborate
Social Psychology. Also discuss the major Social Psychological theories.
Gordon Allport defines social psychology as the study of "how the cognition, emotion, and conduct of people are impacted by the real, imagined, or suggested presence of other humans" (1985).
Group dynamics, social perception,
leadership, nonverbal behaviour, compliance, violence, and prejudice are only
few of the social phenomena studied by social psychologists. Remember that
social psychology is much more than simply studying peer pressure.
Understanding social conduct also relies heavily on one's capacity for seeing
and engaging with other people.
Important Concepts in Social
Psychology
Psychoanalytic Theory
Psychoanalysis may be traced back to
its creator, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). According to proponents of this idea,
everyone has a certain quantity of vital psychic or mental energy, referred to
as libido energy. The libido is crucial to maturation since it is the
wellspring of one's psychological energy and has several outlets. According to
this theory, there are two distinct areas of one's mind: the conscious and the
unconscious. The component of the mind that is aware of its surroundings is
analogous to the visible area of an iceberg. The conscious portion of one's
mind is far less than the unconscious, even yet it contains all the memories
that may be triggered. Unconscious mental processes include those of which a
person is not consciously aware, such as emotions, wants, instincts, and knowledge.
However, it does affect people's actions in certain ways.
The Concept of Social Learning
There are a huge of number of
theories based on the principles fundamental principles of social-learning
theory but for our purpose we will provide the basic principles of
social-learning theory from which the more specialised theories have been
created. The common name for this school of thought is
"behaviourism." Theories of human behaviour, according to
social-learning theory, should be based on data collected from the real world
rather than on abstract mental ideas like the id, ego, repression, and so on.
Although this theory does not dispute the reality of such processes, it
contends that they are of little value in providing an explanation for human
behaviour since they cannot be seen. Rather, social-learning theory focuses on
the connections between an individual's environment and their behaviour.
Theorizing Interpersonal Interaction
The idea of social exchange draws
heavily on the field of learning studies. This theory offers an explanation for
human behaviour by focusing on the positive reinforcement that results from
interactions between individuals. It describes how people decide which partners
to begin trade with based on how much "profit" they stand to gain
from the transaction. To calculate a return, we look at the initial investment,
the ongoing fees, and the final compensation that a S exchange participant
receives. When both the outlay of time and the expense of investment (in the
form of schooling, for example) are high, the return on that investment must
also be substantial. The central tenet of exchange theory is that actions taken
during lucrative exchanges will become more common in the future, while those
taken during unsuccessful ones would become less so. Attempts to explain social
behaviour are made within the framework of social-exchange theory, which at
times appeals to brain processes to do so. History of previous reinforcement
presupposes memory and the capacity to remember it. Predicting prospective
outcomes, such as the individual's profit from future trades, requires mental
processing. Among the many competing explanations for human social behaviour,
social-exchange theory is among the most widely accepted because of its robust
dependence on the well-established premise of learning theory, as shown by the
inclusion of restricted cognitive resources.
Cognitive Theory
Cognitive theories of human behaviour
place a premium on mental processes like "he processes of acquiring
information, giving it significance, organising it into knowledge," which
include things like perceptions, knowledge, ideas, and expectations. Cognitive
processes like these are considered crucial to human welfare. The invisibility
of these mental processes has hampered attempts to empirically test hypotheses
about the mind. Their presence must be deduced from observable behaviours,
which is not always a simple task. Even though many other cognitive models of
behaviour have been proposed, we will just address the two most extensively
discussed ones: symbolic-interaction theory and cognitive-consistency theory.
The Theory of Symbolic Interaction
The antecedents of this concept may
be traced back to the early nineteenth century in the fields of philosophy,
psychology, and sociology. The most prominent advocate of this view was George
Herbert Mead (1934). Human contact is the primary emphasis of the idea. Since
humans clearly have the capacity to execute the process of thinking, reasoning,
and planning, which is not possessed by other species, the idea claims that
studying humans is the greatest way to understand social interaction. That is
why it is psychologically grounded: the theory emphasises the importance of
thinking. Mead believed that cooperation between people was the basic
foundation of civilization, thus an examination of this aspect of human nature
is central to this method. Cooperation in humans is driven by a different set
of values than it is in animals. The fact that we humans have a higher mental
process and thus experience life in a symbolic as well as a physical realm is
what makes society (collaborative behaviour) feasible. The symbolic world
mediates human responses to stimuli, which animals must do directly. People's
reactions to the world around them are shaped by the significance they assign
to the stimuli they encounter via their minds. According to this concept,
individuals consider the responses of others to their actions before deciding
how to behave in social situations. Animals lack the capacity for self-reflection
that characterises the human species. By imagining what another person in a
certain social position might do in response to a given action, one engages in
a process known as role playing. Thinking through the reaction of a teacher,
spouse, or friend to a proposed action might help one determine whether or not
it is likely to produce the intended result. One's actions have social
significance if the other person reacts in a way that is consistent with one's
expectations. Cooperation and social order are born out of the process of
assuming roles. Observed and predicted behaviours often agree with one another
to a high but not perfect degree. An encounter in which expectations and
results always match would be dull, while little or no overlap would lead to
anarchy or chaos and prevent collaboration. According to this hypothesis,
people connect socially when they have a shared understanding of the context.
The tennis match, wedding, or classroom serves as the backdrop against which
the role-playing takes place (a ground, home, or street). It presumes that the
effects are genuine for the persons involved even if the description of the
scenario does not represent social reality. Therefore, if one group believes
that another group dislikes them, even if no such hatred really exists, the
first group is more likely to launch an assault on the other group.
Cognitive-Consistence Theory
Cognitions are the mental processes
by which people like you and me make sense of the world around us. Knowledge,
views, and beliefs about oneself, one's behaviour, and one's surroundings are
all part of this. Perception is the process through which we take in and make
sense of the world around us. One of the main concerns of consistency theory
has been the issue of how these cognitive pieces, which are reliant on one
another, are structured into a bigger whole. Most of the research in this field
is based on the premise that people actively seek coherence and equilibrium
between their interconnected mental representations. For instance, if I had
firm beliefs that smoking causes lung cancer, it would be hypocritical of me to
continue doing so. The same is true if I assign qualities like honesty and
morality to a close friend and then see them stealing from a store. It is
assumed in this theory that people would act in ways that reduce the
discrepancy between their interpersonal and intrapersonal thoughts and emotions
and their external behaviours. According to the concept of inconsistency, a
person will not make any effort to act in a manner that is consistent with what
he or she has seen. These theories also make the assumption that being
inconsistent is an unpleasant condition. As a result, the person feels
pressured to try to get rid of or lessen it. Therefore, inconsistency or imbalance
has a motivating character and may be a primary driver in bringing about a
change in the individual's attitudes or behaviours. Cognitive inconsistency may
manifest itself in a variety of settings.
Q. 2 Describe
the process of Socialization. Also evaluate different theories of
Socialization.
Historically, sociologists have
focused on how individuals learn to recognise and respect the rights and
responsibilities of themselves and others, to distinguish between good and
wrong, and so on. Individuals develop a sense of self and familiarity with
cultural norms via the process of socialisation. To put it another way,
socialisation is the glue that holds society together because without it,
neither the individual nor the group would be able to survive. It allows one to
acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours necessary for thriving in a
community of peers. Further, it allows the civilization to create offspring in
a social as well as biological sense, assuring the culture's survival from one
generation to the next.
Personality is a key product of
socialisation. The term "personality" is used more broadly and
precisely in sociology than in common parlance, which tends to focus on a
person's character or temperament. Personality is defined as a person's
consistent behavioural, emotional, and cognitive tendencies throughout time.
Therefore, there are three main
facets to a person's personality: their cognitive abilities, which include
their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, memories, and other intellectual
capacities; their emotional qualities, which include their feelings of love,
hate, jealousy, sympathy, anger, and pride; and their behavioural qualities,
which include their skills, aptitudes, competence, and other abilities.
Human Beings
It is expected that some level of
social order already exists in order for socialisation to occur effectively.
Second, the newly added asocial member must be equipped with all the right
biological tools. This is due to the fact that, in addition to assuming
sufficient genetic potential, socialisation focuses primarily on proper
interpersonal interaction. It seeks to answer the question, "What is it
like to be a human animal?"
Those who subscribe to the Tabula
Rasa theory believe that a baby is born neither anti-social nor pro-social, but
is instead more like to a block of clay waiting to be shaped, with no inherent
tendencies toward either extreme. According to this theory, socialisation is
always the product of existing social forces. In addition, this view holds that
the organism is shaped by society rather than actively shaping his or her
environment. In this perspective, people are only objects, reacting to the
forces that society has placed on them. This perspective often portrays the
person as helpless and receptive exclusively to external influences.
Consequently, variations in the results of socialisation are ascribed less to
differences in personal traits and more to variations in the structure of
society.
This perspective holds that the
person has some responsibility for his or her own socialisation, and it places
an emphasis on the prenatal characteristics of the baby as a key determinant of
later social behaviour. It assumes that a kid never reacts directly to stimuli
but rather behaves towards them based on the meanings they have been assigned.
According to this point of view, socialisation is not a passive process but
rather one that involves the interplay of individual traits and environmental
factors. As a result, socialisation encompasses not only the dissemination of
cultural norms but also the investigation of "humanization."
A debate exists between proponents of
the "nature vs. nurture" or "active vs. passive" schools of
thought. For what or whom do the results of our socialisation depend? According
to the Tabula Rasa school of thought, any observed variations are mostly the
product of environmental forces, and the social order is ultimately accountable
for the results. However, practically all legal systems are predicated on the
idea that each person bears some responsibility for his or her actions. Or
else, the rewards and penalties meted out by the legal system would be
illogical.
Theorizing the Process of
Socialization
An Insight into the Psychoanalytic
Method
According to this theory of
socialisation, the quality of the parent-child interaction is the most
important factor in shaping the child's identity. Several distinct psychosexual
phases of development are outlined, with the home environment seen as
foundational to the child's maturation and socialisation. The mother's
interactions with her kid during potty training, feeding, and so on are seen as
the social foundation from which a variety of personality traits emerge, and
are thus examined in terms of the strength of their emotional bond. The energy
source, the Id that is already there at birth, is given significant
consideration in the formation of the original nature of the human body as it
progresses through the phases of development. Id is most powerful in early
phases since it is when its urgent wants are being met. Ego and superego
functions emerge as the kid grows, revealing new facets of the mind's workings.
Based on the nature of reality, the ego's principal role is reality
construction and the channelling of id energy into ways that relieve stress
(both social and physical). Waiting for supper to be made teaches the youngster
that the whole meal, rather than a quickly cooked slice of bread requested
instantly, is healthier for the organism in the long term.
Social-learning Approach
The idea behind social learning is
that when a youngster receives reinforcement for some actions but not for
others, the child will quickly learn what is and is not acceptable in any given
social situation. The child's inherent disposition is to repeat the actions that
have been rewarded and to stop doing the actions that have not been rewarded.
By learning which reaction is associated with particular stimulus, the kid is
able to develop a more nuanced understanding of the world than is possible when
studying" broad qualities. Therefore, learning is seen as primarily the
process of forming associations between stimuli and reinforcers. Stamping in or
seaming out methods of linking particular stimuli with specific reinforcers
rely heavily on reward and punishment.
Cognitive-Symbolic Method
The person and the social order are
inextricably linked, and this inseparability is emphasised by the
symbolic-interaction perspective. Institutions play a crucial part in society
and their duties often overlap with one another. As a result, people who move
into different jobs in society learn what kind of behaviour is expected of
them. When a person takes on a social position and accepts as acceptable the
norms and expectations of that role, we say that person has gotten socialised. He
or she is able to take a societal view of his or her behaviour and make social
moves that are consistent with that sense of self. This view holds that
socialisation develops as the human body interacts with the established social
order. Developmentally, the youngster is making good progress. The child's
developmental potential and the features of the social order are the two main
factors that will decide who will win the race of progress. A child's cognitive
development determines the extent to which he actively and selectively analyses
information.
Q. 3 Discuss
in detail the phenomenon of conformity and its related concepts.
People's definitions of
"conformity" and "deviance" seem to be rather consistent.
If we conducted a poll asking a group of individuals if the word
"conformist" had good or negative connotations, the vast majority of
respondents would likely choose the latter. It is likely that if you called
them a "deviant," they would react the same way. Conformity and
transgression, it seems, have similar negative connotations in today's culture.
Why do these words conjure up such
unflattering images in people's minds? Maybe when they hear the term
"conformity," they see the archetypal "corporate guy." He
always appears in his trademark brown suit and asks no questions of his
superiors, as everybody can see. However, the word "deviant" can
trigger an opposite extreme in their thinking. As an example, they could
picture a psychopathic criminal who is completely indifferent to his or her victims'
suffering. These associations and mental pictures are very simplistic and
inaccurate.
We need to reframe the concepts of
conformity and deviation for the sake of our debate. They are fundamental ideas
in studies of smaller groups. The common misconceptions about them, which are
based on inaccurate generalisations, have nothing to do with the accurate
applications of the two notions to social groupings.
The debate over how much emphasis
should be placed on encouraging uniformity vs encouraging individuality is a
crucial one in the context of study of small groups. Relevant situations are
those in which an individual must decide whether or not to conform to the norms
of a certain group. In such a scenario, a member of the group may choose
between many appropriate responses. There are two potential origins of this
problem. To begin, one of the choices may have widespread public support. In a
group of physicians, for instance, it would be considered appropriate for each
member to simply refer to themselves as "Doctor." One of the medical
professionals can experience societal pressures to use the title even if he or
she does not want to. The second risk is that the majority vote might go
against the group member. The electorate has given him or her a choice between
two options. A group of physicians, for instance, may decide that they would
want everyone to stick with the more official term, and so they would have a
vote on it.
If a person takes the path that the
majority supports or that is generally accepted, they have conformed. In
contrast, deviation occurs when an individual opts for an activity that is not
supported by the majority of society. Evidently, there are a plethora of
scenarios in which one must contend with the consensus view. In the morning, as
you are getting ready for the day, you are automatically immersed in a group of
individuals who, statistically speaking, all wear the same thing. Will you wear
jeans and a T-shirt as they do, or will you choose a different look if you
would rather stand out? It is clear that in such a setting, everyone's choices
are either going to be in line with the norm or radically different from it.
There are various social norms from
which a person might either comply or depart. They could, for instance, adopt
the values of the group with regards to things like honesty and integrity. Is
it terrible to be a conformist? Likewise, he or she may break away from a gang
whose guiding principles include dishonesty and corruption. I think this is an
excellent deviation to try. Therefore, there is no moral value attached to
either compliance or deviation. Incorrect assumptions permeate the public
consciousness.
However, researchers have
distinguished between the many forms of conformity and deviation, asking what
motivates each kind of behaviour. The motives underlying an action, in contrast
to the action itself, might be positive or terrible.
For instance, it is probably not a
good idea to adhere to a group ideal of honesty and integrity if you do not
really believe in the concept and are just trying to fit in. This kind of
conformity is known as compliance by academics. Behavioral conformity is the
most common type of this phenomenon. One who conforms merely performs what they
assume the group wants. It normally has negative effects on the group, although
this is not always the case.
However, there is a different kind of
conformity that happens when someone adopts the same ideas and practises as the
group. It is termed "private acceptance" when this happens. It
benefits the group most of the time, although this is not always the case. A
excellent conformist in a community that values honesty, for instance, is
someone who has a deep-seated commitment to the ideals that honesty represents.
This individual always tells the truth, not only when they think the group is
watching. Many experimentalists draw parallels between the positive and
negative deviations from normative behaviour.
A Structural Viewpoint
This chapter takes a structural
approach to the study of conformity and deviance. Scientists who adopt a
structural approach, as we saw in Chapter 1, hold that there is a process by
which judgments about how group behaviours "should be" are formed
from predictions about how those behaviours "will be." The rankings
are established by consensus within the group. During the first few group
gatherings, Jan may be the one to initiate conversation. The other members of
the group begin to count on her doing so every time they get together. Over
time, the group could establish a custom in which Jan is expected to initiate
conversation at every get-together. Eventually, they could agree that Jan
should go first while speaking.
To understand conformity and
deviation, it is crucial to first understand the idea of norms. Acceptable
group conduct is defined by the group's norms. People's conformity or deviation
from them is measured against them. For instance, in a certain group, it is
expected that Jan would initiate conversation. Everyone else in the group
follows suit when Jan decides to go first. Harold has veered from the usual if
he ever breaks the chain of command by speaking before Jan.
Norms
Before we get into a discussion of
conformity and deviation, it is crucial to address a few key aspects concerning
norms. Insofar as a group decides a certain conduct is significant, it might
develop norms around it. However, not every standard is the same. Both groups'
norms and the degree to which they are accepted by the group as a whole are
distinct characteristics. Here's a case in point. Wearing blue jeans, tennis or
running shoes, sweatshirts, T-shirts, and the like as part of a self-proclaimed
"international student uniform" has long been the standard at Good
Old State University. However, the cadet uniform is the standard attire at West
Point, and it is considerably different from the student uniform.
It is possible that there is a wide
range of quality to be found in these "dress" standards. They, along
with all other standards, may be organised in many ways. The level of formality
or informality, for instance, might be used to categorise them. How much they
are forced on the group, either from beyond or from inside, is another
consideration. Researchers have discovered that formal standards often arise
from outside. As an illustration of this principle in action, consider the
traditional garb worn by West Point cadets. By contrast, unofficial customs
like the "international student uniform" develop organically among
members of a certain community.
The maximum allowable discrepancy is
still another consideration. West Point's "dress" standard is
substantially more conservative than that of Good Old State University. The
extent to which a group accepts a norm may also change. The students at Good
Old State U., with a few notable exceptions, are probably more accepting of
their school's clothing code than those at West Point. Even while on break,
most West Pointers probably do not wear their uniforms. Last but not least,
keep in mind that norms might have varying degrees of applicability depending
on the individual members of the group. It is possible that certain rules apply
to everyone in the group while others are just pertinent to those who play
certain roles.
We must preface this chapter with the
caveat that it contains intentionally vague language. At times, it may seem
unclear whether our focus is on the process through which a group achieves a
certain goal or the result of that process. It is easy to understand how social
rules apply to both actions. Norms are established by groups to guide the
behaviour of its members, and groups may also adopt norms in response to
certain policy proposals. It is common for a group to establish rules for
conducting meetings, for instance. It is a standard operating procedure that
Beth will bring the meeting to order, Rob will crack a joke to ease tensions,
and everyone will cast their vote on the most essential matters. How the team
gets its work done is governed by these principles. All members, for instance,
may be required to wear green shirts to meetings and to have a same political
viewpoint. The collective output is subject to such standards.
To sum up, the group's
decision-making process is separate from the conclusions themselves. However,
from a structural standpoint, this divergence is not very significant. That is
why we will not differentiate between discussing norms about the process of a
group and discussing norms about the results of a group. The lack of clarity
has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Conformity
Why do people feel the need to follow
the herd? Decisions in a group first and foremost need consensus among members.
When people follow the lead of the group, we say they are conforming. A common
group standard may be to wait for unanimous agreement on a plan of action. If
everyone in a group agrees on a certain proposition, then they have reached a
consensus on that issue. The ability to reach a consensus does not mean that
everyone is thrilled by the idea; rather, it indicates that everyone is
confident that they can make do with the plan being put forth. Everyone must
agree on a course of action or the group will be stuck in a rut.
As a matter of custom, another group
may need a simple majority vote before taking any action. In this instance,
agreement with a choice is required just by a simple majority of the group.
Each member of the group, however, must accept the concept of "majority
rule" as the norm. Therefore, for any type of organisation to make a
decision, its members will need to comply in some fashion. There can be no
progress in the group until there is uniformity. We can expand upon this
concept. A group can not do anything, even make a decision, unless its members
follow a set of rules and regulations.
As we have shown, it is easy to
understand why consensus requires a high degree of consistency among group
members. In a school cafeteria, for instance, three persons may find themselves
in proximity to one another. All of them get along and have gotten together to
organise a school dance. Nonetheless, the trio cannot come to terms on how they
should run the organisation. They are debating amongst themselves around the
table over whether or not to have group votes on issues or whether or not to
choose a leader and give that person veto power. Group members attempt to
determine whether they should compose a list of chores without addressing this
dilemma, but they are unable to do so since they are unsure of how to settle
the matter: by consensus or by a vote. It is clear that the organisation is not
getting anywhere since its members are not willing to compromise in any manner.
Reasons to be Motivated
The same intrinsic factors that draw
individuals into organisations also play a role in driving conformity. Having
fun in a group and wanting to see it succeed. People may adhere to the norms of
a group for any of these reasons. As if that were not enough, there is another
another incentive that might encourage uniformity. People could give in to
group pressure or be persuaded into conformity. In the next paragraph, we will
go into more detail about this potential scenario.
Conformity may be driven in part by
an innate need for social approval, according to some studies. According to
this hypothesis, individuals are always in search of validation that their
existing worldviews are accurate. This phenomenon was termed "compliance
for the sake of accuracy" by Festinger (1954). His idea has been dubbed
"social comparison theory" by academics.
Festinger argues that people have a
fundamental drive to be "right." As a consequence, individuals are
always on the lookout for opportunities to compare their own worldview to
objective criteria. Different types of norms exist. Any claim regarding what
constitutes "physical reality" must meet these strict requirements.
Whether we want to know if we should believe that an item is breakable, for
instance, we can just strike it with a hammer to find out.
Contrarily, criteria of opinions
about "social reality" are contextual. Festinger distinguishes
between two types of socially plausible views. Beliefs regarding one's skills
go under the first category, while opinions fall under the second. In both
cases, we need external referees against whom to measure our own performance.
These folks can not be too different from us, so keep that in mind. If that is
the case, comparing ourselves to them is pointless. If a high school basketball
player wants to assess his own skills, he should not compare himself to NBA
great Michael Jordan or a preschooler learning to dribble the ball. A moderate
Democrat may, as another example, be interested in evaluating her own judgement
on a particular issue. Neither a Socialist Worker Party member nor a
Libertarian Party supporter should serve as a yardstick for her.
If a person is unhappy with how they
see themselves, according to Festinger's thesis, they will work to improve
their skills and outlook. Individuals cannot respond in the same manner to two
distinct types of beliefs, such as views and skills. Individuals may provide a
positive or negative evaluation to a set of skills. For instance, a basketball
player's point total would be a good indicator of his performance. An obvious
path to improvement is a shift toward the "good" end of the rating
scale.
People have varying responses to
points of view. When asked to grade their thoughts, they do not do so on a
scale of "excellent" to "poor," but rather
"correct" to "incorrect." To go closer to the
"right" side of the spectrum, they adjust their views. In order to
"better" her views, the Democrat will need to adjust them until they
more closely align with those of other Democrats. That is because she agrees
with the views of her fellow Democrats.
Q. 4 Define
the term “attitude”? Also write down major theories that deal with the attitude
change.
A person's attitude is the importance
they place on an issue or individual. Generally speaking, what do you think of
the present leader of the free world? Are you a fan of classical music? The
answers to these questions will show your opinion on the president and of
classical music, among other things.
Theory of Attitude Formation
Theories of Consistency in Thought
Consistency between one's views and
one's actions is something that individuals strive for, as has been shown
through study after study. This implies that individuals attempt to make peace
between seemingly contradictory beliefs and values and bring their beliefs and
actions into line so that they come across as reasonable and consistent. Forces
are set in motion when inconsistencies are detected, with the goal of bringing
the person back to a point of balance where their thoughts and actions are in
sync. Either adjusting one's outlook or behaviour, or coming up with a
justification for the gap, will accomplish this.
Cognitive consistency theories seek
to explain why and how people experience inconsistencies in their beliefs,
knowledge, and valuations of a subject. Despite their differences, all
consistency theories aim to bring the person back to a consistent state of mind
by eliminating whatever caused the inconsistency in the first place.
Functional Theory
When analysing an individual's
motivational structure, the functional theory takes into account the
individual's attitude and level of effort. The focus of this theory is on the
interpersonal dynamics that manifest in settings where one person exerts
significant influence over another. When people adopt or alter their attitudes
to please another individual or group, this behaviour is known as compliance.
A person is said to have formed an
identity with the person or thing that influenced him when he adopts a new
attitude because it helps him create or keep a favourable connection with that
person or thing. Adopting a stance because it fits in with one's own ethics is
an example of internalisation. This method significantly advances our knowledge
of the factors that determine whether or not an attitude shift will be
sustained.
Social Judgment Theory
Sherif and Hoveland developed the
social judgement theory first. This theory explores the mechanisms through
which preexisting attitudes shape our evaluations of things associated with
those attitudes and so influence the process of attitude shift. As a result,
one's original stance on an issue acts as a reference point from which to
evaluate attitude-related cues. One's original stance on an issue serves as a
yardstick against which one may measure the validity of competing viewpoints.
These points of view may be broken
down into distinct latitudes on an attitudinal continuum. Individuals'
"latitude of acceptability," or the spectrum of views they deem tolerable,
including the view that most accurately represents where they stand. The
individual's most abhorrent viewpoint is included in the scope of his rejection
of ideas, which is the range of ideas he considers unacceptable. The
noncommittal stance encompasses the spectrum of views that the individual
considers to be neither acceptable nor objectionable.
Attitude Change
A person's attitude is the sum of
their thoughts and actions in relation to a certain subject. They are not
fixed; rather, they shift in response to the words and deeds of others and the
individual's desire to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance that arises
when incompatible beliefs or values lead to inconsistencies in one's actions.
Both feelings and thoughts play a role in the formation of attitudes and the
things people hold as attitudes. Activating a single node in an associative
network has been hypothesised to cause a shift in the network's
inter-structural composition. Therefore, it may be feasible to alter one's
attitude by stimulating an affective or emotional node, despite the fact that
the emotional and rational parts of any given attitude are often linked. Here
are the three stages that characterise an attitude shift:
Compliance
The term "compliance" is
used to describe a change in behaviour that is motivated by the expectation of
future reinforcement or avoidance of potential negative consequences.
Individuals are motivated to modify their conduct by the social consequences
associated with maintaining the status quo, rather than because of a shift in
their own views or judgments of an attitude object. It is not uncommon for the
person to be aware that he or she is being prompted to act in a certain manner.
The Asch tests, a series of
experimental demonstrations, proved compliance. Researchers at Swarthmore
College, directed by Solomon Asch, administered a "vision test" to
groups of students as part of an experiment. In actuality, all but one student
were the experimenter's stooges, and the research was designed to gauge the
unwitting participant's reaction to their antics. The participants were given
three possible line lengths and were instructed to verbally state which one
corresponded to the length of the sample. Asch had secretly set up a number of
"confederates" to deliver the erroneous response in front of the
attendees. Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed with the majority's
viewpoint and selected the same options as the conspirators. Compliance rates
climbed with more confederates, and reached a level at around 15 participants,
according to the research. Minority resistance decreased the chance of
compliance, even if just one rebel provided the right response. The assumption
that individuals fundamentally desire to be correct and truthful provides the
foundation for compliance.
Identification
Changes in one's thoughts and
feelings in order to more closely resemble someone they respect may be
explained by identification. The person changes their attitude not because of
anything in particular about the attitude object, but rather because of the
association between the attitude object and the desired connection. Children
often take on their parents' views and opinions on important issues like race
and politics.
Internalization
Internalization occurs when the individual
finds the attitude's content to be personally fulfilling, leading to a genuine
shift in their opinions towards the target of their attitude. When a person
adopts a new belief or action that is in line with their current set of core
values, they are more likely to adopt it permanently. Thus, internalised
actions may be traced back to the attributes of the attitude object itself. The
key tenet of the expectancy-value approach is that one's perspective may be
altered from inside. According to this theory, one's actions toward a target
depend on their intentions, which in turn depend on their general disposition.
Q. 5 Write
down notes on the following:
i. Types and examples of collective
behavior
Collective behaviour, as it has been
typically applied to these occurrences, is defined as collective behaviour that
is wholly ad hoc, highly unpredictable and planless in its growth, and is
wholly reliant on the mutual stimulation of its members. Panics, revolutions,
riots, lynchings, manias, crazes, and fads are all examples of communal
behaviour. The study of collective behaviour has always taken an emotional,
suggestible, and illogical approach.
Types and Examples of Collective
Behaviour
Collective behaviour has been used to
describe a wide variety of group behaviours, from the mostly unplanned and
fleeting antics of a mob to the more deliberate, controlled, and protracted
dynamics of a significant social movement.
The Crowd
There is always a sizable crowd if we
go to the theatre or a sporting event. We are participating in the political
rally because we want to see a shift in both home and international policies.
It is possible to see how each of these represents typical activities of a
large group of people. An audience, mob, rally, or even a panicked mob are all
examples of crowds. People in large groups may be either active or passive,
according to Roger Brown (1954). The term "audience" is used to
describe a group of people who are just seeing something, whether they are
local (a group of people who have stopped on a street corner to watch a
stimulus event) or from all over the world (the viewers at an international
sporting event). Aggressive collectivities, such as riots and fynch mobs, as
well as panics of escape and acquisition and expressive crowds all fall under
the umbrella term "mob."
When analysing crowd behaviour, most
experts agree that rumour spreading is a crucial factor. If a large group of
people decides to do anything jointly, like start a riot, panic, or lynch, they
will need to agree on at least a rough understanding of what is going on. This
widespread understanding usually develops as a result of the spread of rumours.
In their study of collective-behavior
incidents, Turner and Killian (1972) found that gossip was the most common form
of information exchange. It is the process through which a potentially nebulous
circumstance is given clarity. Because they provide individuals with a sense of
purpose and organisation in the face of uncertainty, rumours play a crucial
role in helping them solve problems and move forward in an unpredictable world.
Uncertainty and pressure provide ideal conditions for the spread of rumours.
Due to the heightened urgency with which we seek meaning under stress, rumours
may spread rapidly when our safety is endangered yet we have little information
to go on. Word-of-mouth is the most common way that rumours spread. The rate of
transmission is considerably increased in situations when huge numbers of
individuals are congregating. Throughout their journey, these rumours get
utterly warped. In the vast majority of cases involving collective behaviour,
they are instrumental. They assist prospective players get their footing by
giving them a shared understanding of the scenario and offering context when
there is nothing to go on. This helps to galvanise the group into action by
providing a focal point for a riot or lynching, assigning blame for setbacks,
and outlining the best way forward. Most civilizations rely heavily on rumours
as a means of spreading information, and this role is exacerbated in times of
crisis.
Crowd Leadership and Its Importance
Many collective behaviours relate a
surge in energy to the leader's activities. The emerging leadership is taking
the initiative and doing what the group will do next. This kind of leadership
emerges organically rather than being handpicked. Leaders arise organically
over the course of group dynamics, only to blend back into the mob after the
excitement has died down. Leadership often does not emerge unless in significant
societal movements. Many of the world's most influential politicians first came
to prominence as the faces of grassroots movements. Leaders like Gandhi,
Castro, Mao, Khomieni, and Tung are only a few examples. Leadership in a mob
involves violating conventional standards, and these people are the weakest in
terms of their ability to adhere to norms. Examining the functions of the
leader provides the finest synopsis of why leadership is so crucial in most
cases of collective behaviour. As a first step, the leader raises the stakes by
amplifying the group's existing emotional tensions. The leader then proposes a
solution to the tense situation.
At last, the leader explains why the
chosen path is the "correct" one. This is the last step in the
process by which individuals who were previously more reasonable and reserved
become part of a group and act as a unit. It is true that things are not always
what they appear to be in collective behaviour occurrences. Marx (1974) makes
the observation that some activists and even some leaders of social movements
are really "agent provocateurs" or informers placed by an authority
to provoke internal crises.
When people panic, they act as a
group
When individuals are in close
proximity to one another, such as at a theatre or hotel when a fire has broken
out, panic is more likely to break out. One example of this is the possibility
of widespread economic panic if people from different locations start using the
same set of terminology to describe the same event. The scattered individuals
need to be prompted to take action, maybe by a radio or television broadcast
(see Norms and Social Influence, unit -3 of part two). However, a large crowd
makes it easier for people to take action. Panics, at their core, entail people
scrambling for limited resources. This might be money, goods, or a higher
social standing. When money or another commodity is feared to be in short
supply, economic panic may ensue, leading to actions like "running on the
bank" or "selling on the stock market." Panic may also break out
in crowded places when people fear there are not enough exits to get out of a
burning structure. According to studies, panic attacks are more likely to occur
when there is uncertainty regarding the level of risk and the likelihood of
escape. From Fitz and Williams (1957) draw the following conclusions from their
analysis of the experimental literature:
ii. Theoretical approaches to the
study of collective behavior
While many
sociologists have discussed "collective conduct," which they say
characterises the actions of crowds as "irrational," few have
attempted to define the term. The definitions help when the country as a whole
responds to the psycho activity without question. This notion is representative
of the elite's dismissal of the masses as naive, reckless, and careless.
Convergence theories emerged later [Freud, 1922; All port, 1924; Miller and
001-, 1941], with an emphasis on how members of a collectivism have comparable
cultural and.personality qualities that facilitate a collective reaction to a
given scenario. The convergence theories acknowledge that collective action may
be logical and goal-directed, shifting the focus away from the more commonplace
notion that it is nothing more than a haphazard collection of random acts.
Finally, emergent norm theories propose that when a circumstance calls for
collective action, a norm emerges to regulate that action [Turner and Killian,
1957, 1972]. Smelter [1963] attempts an integrated synthesis of these ideas,
but what emerges is mostly an emergent norm theory. Collective conduct is
determined by his factors.
Finality in
terms of structure. It is possible that the social norms of a given community
might either foster or stifle group Traditional communities are less likely to
engage in large-scale, coordinated actions than our own modern society.
Strain on the
structure. Many severe actions are taken because of widespread hardship and the
dread of further deprivation. Candidates for collective conduct include the
poor, the oppressed, groups whose achievements have been fought for, and even
privileged groups that fear losing their advantages. A widespread opinion that
has gained traction, There can be no group action without widespread agreement
on the nature of the danger, the means of evasion, or the path to success.
Reasons why it
came to pass. The plot is set in motion by an exciting development or rumour.
In a racially charged area, cries of "police brutality" might spark
widespread violence. The flight of even one individual might set off a
stampede. Leaders take the initiative to initiate or suggest a course of action
and then oversee its implementation.
Control in
society in action. Leadership, police authority, propaganda, legislative and
government policy changes, and other social controls may intervene at any of
the aforementioned steps to break the cycle. Although Smelser's formulation has
been the subject of much debate and testing (Oberschall, 1968; Wilkinson, 1970;
Lewis, 1972; Berk, 1974a, pp. 40-46), it continues to be one of the most
popular theoretical frameworks for investigating group dynamics.