Actionchange Evaluation conditioning Moving on from the diffusion of responsibility,it may be suggested that it is indeed possible to alter attitude and thereforethe behaviour that come from it. This can be done using evaluating conditioning(valence of a stimulus that is due to the pairingof that stimulus with another positive or negative stimulus). It may beargued that by using evaluated conditioning it is possible to reduce automaticallyactivated racial attitudes, and prejudice behaviours (French et al, 2013). Indeed,research indicates that by promoting participants to re-categorise members ofan outgroup member (i.e.

another race), as a member of liked group leads to anactivation of a positive evaluation (Olson and Fazio, 2006; Wittenbrink et al,2001). Prejudicial responses are averted in these situations by either promotingparticipants to avoid the kinds of categorization processes that lead toactivation of prejudice or by altering the response label contractual thatgovern performance on the implicit measure. However, authors have argued that explicitmeasures are known to be affected by social desirability bias (reference). Althoughsome individuals will honestly report their racial attitudes on explicitmeasures, others are motivated to avoid appearing prejudice (references1 ). Classical conditioning In addition, research hasproposed that classical conditioning may be useful in the understanding ofracism and prejudice, in that categorisation of learned behaviour is eliciteds2 (Congeret al, 2010).

Indeed, from a young age, children areconditioned to fit people into a category adverse emotional/judgementalreaction to racially different others under the label of prejudice. Classical conditioninghas been used to explain the development of emotional or evaluative reactionslike these (reference). Indeed, new emotional responses become established andhow they grow. More specifically classical conditioning posits that aconditional response (CR) develops through parings of a natural stimulus (CS)with an unconditional stimulus (UCS) that naturally elicited an unconditional response(UCR). In terms of racism, various adverse emotional reactions such as anger,fear and anxiety become elicited (as CRs) by persons of another race (CSs) whoshould be perceived as harmless or natural. However, response moderatingfactors that influence the extent to which paring of a UCS and CS will resultin new responses. The more salient or noticeable a CS the more easily that CSwill take the valence f a UCS with which it is paired.   Role playing  Gender roles It has long been proposed that attitudes towards genderroles have a huge impact upon behaviours that come from it (reference).

Indeed,individuals often engage in stereotypical behaviours (e.g. men try to bemasculine) in an attempted to maintain group (i.e.

family/friends) relations,even if their behaviour does not reflect their attitude. Humans require social interactionto maintain a degree of happiness and wellbeing; social exclusion can be detrimentalto one’s emotional welfare, self-esteem, self-worth and sense of meaning (Stillmanet al, 2009; Sapolsky, 2004). Itmay be argued that this is due to a conditioned need to be seen as a member of one’sin-group (i.

e. gender); avoiding rejection and maintaining a degree ofself-worth and masculinity/femininity. In addition, one’s personalcharacteristics and desirability seems to be judged from their masculinity/femininityand thus nonconformity may result in rejection from the opposing sex(reference). For example, females sough traditional male roles as morerespectful, hardworking, intelligent and attractive (reference). Therefore,’role playing’ is essential in order to obtain a desirable partner, even ifone’s fundamental beliefs must be sacrificed in the process (reference).  their self-concepts became more favorable than whenthey experienced norm-noncongruent rela- tionships (i.e., dominance for womenand communion for men).

In contrast, people who did not identify with theirsex-role group were not systematically affected by the experienced socialrelationships. P. Niels Christensen   Situation specific roless3 Moreover, it isnot only vital that for social acceptable one must conform to gender specificroles, individuals must also comply and adjust their behaviour depending on thesituation they find themselves in (reference). In other words, depending onone’s environment, individuals must make a calculated decision of how tobehave. However, environments/social situations can change throughout the day,therefore individuals have to adapted continuously. It may be suggested thatindividuals adapt in order to acquire validation from their peers in any givensituation. Indeed, validation appears to instil confidence and reassure anindividual’s personal activities (reference). Leary et al (1995) examinedhow self-esteem may act as a measure for self-worth within social interaction.

It was proposed that self-esteem operated as a sociometer (a monitorymechanism), providing individuals with an indicator to whether an action waspositive or negative (e.g. positive reception in the form of verbal praise).However, this theory does not appear to be linear. Neutrality can be seen asbeing negative and therefore detrimental to an individual’s self-worth(Stefanone et al, 2011). For example,a lack of acknowledgement from peers could suggest disinterest and impartialityand therefore could be perceived as rejection. In this context, neutralitywould very likely impact a person’s self-worth in a similar way to that ofrejection on would, especially if one is consistently being dismissed and/orignored by their peers (Stefanone et al,2011).   Anonymity The internet  Moving on from cognitivedissonance, anonymity may explain why actions are determined by attitude.

Rosner and Kramer (2016) investigated how anonymity effects attitude and action(e.g. post) on the internet. It was found that anonymity via the internetinteracted stronger aggression. It may be argued that people lose their innerconstraints and feel safer when in front of a computer/phone screen thancompared to face-to-face communication. Indeed, individuals seem to feel lessinhibited in cyberspace than offline, leading to de-individuated state feel lessinhibited and therefore less responsible for their actions. However, it may besuggested that although anonymity can cause people to share their true opinion,it would seem individuals are still susceptible to group influence and norms (Postmeset al, 2001). To some degree, anonymity seemed to increase social influence ifa common group identify is salient, primed norms (definition) took root inanonymous groups displayed prime-consistent behaviour in their task solutions.

In other words…..  Supportingabove – Ho,S.S. and McLeod, D.

M., 2008. Social-psychological influences on opinionexpression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.

 Communication Research, 35(2), pp.190-207. Diffusion of responsibility Moreover, the diffusion of responsibility,also known as ‘the bystander effect’s4 ,and being anonymous can effect peoples attitude and the action that follows(reference). Indeed, research has proposed that being an anonymous bystander comparedto being a known bystander, can affect someone’s actions (Nicksa,S.C.

, 2014). This may be due to the reward/return to riskprinciple, individuals often assess a situation before making a decision on howto act, assessing if the cost of helping will negatively or positively affectthe bystander. It would seem that when reporting crime, people are more likelyto report a crime anonymously than actually stop the crime from happening as ithappens (therefore attitude to help is present but theaction is different).  Individuals feel they can stop a crime ifthey are an anonymous bystander. This may be due to fear of harm or future confutationswith the offender if the offender knows them. This especially seems to holdtrue for adolescents; due to perceived attitudes of their peers when meant theywere less likely to do anything.

Although this does not seem to be the same forall crime types, in violence and sexual assault type crimes, people often didnot want to do anything due to fear of not having the skills to help. In addition,in the case of violent crimes, due to being anonymous, people did not feel anyemotional connect to the person. Also, the individuals did not feel like itmattered because they didn’t know the person, the responsibility of blame wouldnot later come back to them because no one knows who they are.    Cognitive dissonance Individual Moving on from role theory, cognitivedissonance (situation involving conflicting attitudes,beliefs or behaviours) may also give insight into attitudes and behaviours.

Matzand Wood (2005) investigated group-induced dissonance. It was found that littledissonance discomfort was present when participants were given low choice abouttaking an opining position in the group or when they freely disagreed. It maybe suggested that disagreement yielded dissonance rather than a fear ofimpending conflict or social rejection.

Indeed, heightened discomfort seems tobe relative to those in a controlled position; discomfort being a product ofdissonant cognition rather than of other motives established in groups. Inshort, actions may depend on….However, it may be argued that  Dissonance generated from others disagreementwas alleviated by the introduction of consonant cognition via low choice totake an opposing position and by the opportunity to self-affirm. In otherwords, people experience dissonance discomfort when ins5 a group with others who hold opposing viewpoints, therefore, individuals mayidentify a motivational basis for people’ preference for agreement andtherefore harmony than disagreement in the group. Simple disagreement fromothers to a negative tension state motives information processing and similarmechanism of change. Indeed, agreement within a group is vital to build andmaintain group harmony and function is key and therefore, individuals withinsuch a group are more inclined to avoid confrontation.   Groups In addition to dissonance within groups, peoplealso experience cognitive dissonance when faced with moral dilemma, in that,individuals experience difficulty deliberating between immorality from personalgain (Graham,2007). Loughnan(2010) investigated meat eating and morality.

It was found that eating meatreduced the perceived obligation to show moral concern for the animal they wereconsuming. It may be suggested that people escape the conflict between enjoyingmeat and concern for animal welfare by perceiving animals as unworthy anunfeeling. Indeed, in order to restore an equilibrium when experiencingdissonance and questionable morality and personal gain, one must suppress theirconcern for the issue at hand; subduing the issue to less than what theyoriginally thought of it. Negative attitudes partially the result of moralconcern regarding immorality. A similar application of morality can also beapplied to politics and public voting behaviour.

During election campaigns,individuals will often be exposed to something they perceive as morally wrong(i.e. drone strikes in the Middle East), however personal gain (i.e.

less tax)may place more weight on that side of dissonance; supressing the former thusrestoring a balance (Meffert et al, 2006).   Meffert     s1To follow,how long does it take to get over these thoughts, is it only teenagers who cando this? s2Defineand check this is not meant to be emitted s3Say: Lapinski, M.K. and Rimal, R.

N., 2005 Humans do not act solely on the basisof the popularity of a behavior. Otherwise, the world would not have witnessedminority behaviors that have shaped history, ones that are described as acts ofbravery and cour- age in fighting the powerful, and sometimes coercive, forcesperpetrated by the majority. Nor would we have seen acts of defiance ineveryday life, in which individuals take an unpopular stance despite grouppressures.

     s4Effector affect?  s5Addaction somewhere


I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out