DOCSLIB.ORG

Stereotypes As Attributions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stereotypes As Attributions In: Psychology of Stereotypes ISBN: 978-1-61761-463-7 Editor: Eleanor L. Simon ©2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 2 STEREOTYPES AS ATTRIBUTIONS Mark J. Brandt and Christine Reyna DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA ABSTRACT Why are some groups better off than others? Why are women more likely to take care of the children? How come Blacks generally achieve less educationally and economically? Stereotypes provide answers to these kinds of questions, albeit imperfectly, and help us provide meaning to the social world around us. Early stereotype researchers suggested that stereotypes help people explain and rationalize the position of groups in society (Lippman, 1922). While the influence of this observation has waxed and waned over the years, the explanatory power of stereotypes continues to be an important function of social stereotypes. The current chapter reviews research examining the role of stereotypes as explanatory and rationalization agents and the impact of stereotypes on intergroup behavior. We suggest that stereotypes serve explanatory and attributional functions at three interrelated levels of analysis: (a) individual level, wherein stereotypes are analyzed in terms of the attributional dimensions they imply (locus, stability, controllability); (b) intragroup level, in which stereotypes define and explain by combining stereotypic traits on dimensions of warmth and competence, which in turn predict unique patterns of emotions and behaviors; and (c) intergroup level, in which stereotypes explain the social order by providing compensatory or causally relevant traits in reference to other relevant groups. The resulting attributional signature of stereotypes influences attitudes and behaviors. INTRODUCTION Why are some groups better off than others? Why are women more likely to take care of the children, and men more likely to hold positions of power? How come racial minorities generally achieve less educationally and economically compared to Whites? The answers to these questions are not easy. Evaluating and addressing underlying causes of intergroup disparities and outcomes is a necessary but daunting task, since many of these disparities and 2 Mark Brandt and Christine Reyna status differences in society have ambiguous, multidimensional, or unknown causes. Despite this, when it comes to making decisions about policies that impact groups differently, or programs designed to ameliorate group differences, the pressure on policy- and decision- makers to make causal judgments about disparate group outcomes is tremendous. This pressure can compel people to consider any information that can disambiguate possible underlying causes of group outcomes, even if that information if derived from stereotypes. Understanding the strategies that people use to disambiguate possible underlying causes of group outcomes, especially strategies that can lead to or justify erroneous conclusions, is especially urgent if we ever hope to alleviate and eliminate social group disparities. One source of readily available information about the causes of behaviors or outcomes in individuals and groups is cultural stereotypes. Along with information about what a group is and does, stereotypes also provide information about why group members are in their present state (see also Hamilton, 1979; Wittenbrink, Gist, & Hilton, 1997; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schandron, 1997). For example, the stereotype that “Blacks are lazy” is not just a disparaging description of Blacks, but an explanation for why Blacks might continue to struggle economically. Implicit in stereotypes are attributions for the behaviors and outcomes of the stereotyped groups (e.g., “not working hard to succeed”), and this causal information is often used to justify our social worlds (the lazy do not deserve assistance) (Allport, 1954; Lippman, 1922). So while stereotypes are largely descriptive, attributions are cause-and-effect explanations of why a specific individual or group behaved in a certain manner. These resulting causal beliefs can influence or guide emotional, behavioral and system justifying responses to the stereotyped group. The authors of this chapter posit that analyzing group behavior and outcomes through the combined use of stereotype and attribution perspectives informs us more adequately about these group dynamics. This chapter will first explore when perceivers might rely on stereotypes to guide attributional judgments. It then will explore the ways in which stereotypes can guide attributions. Specifically, we advance the specific thesis that stereotypes can serve attributional functions at three interrelated levels of analysis (see Figure 1) and that stereotypes at all three levels help to explain and justify social structures. The three levels, described below, are (a) the individual level; (b) the intragroup level, called here intragroup stereotype packages; and (c) the intergroup level, the broadest analysis, called here intergroup stereotype packages. Each of these three approaches emphasizes different attributional processes associated with stereotypes that combine to help us make sense out of our social world. By conceptualizing stereotypes at these three levels of analysis, it is possible to see the unique functions of stereotypic traits when perceived in the context of dimensions of causality, other traits, or other groups. These three approaches will be explored using three models that have specifically examined the attributional consequences of stereotypes: the attributional model of stereotypes (Reyna, 2000; 2008), the stereotype content model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xiu, 2002), and research on complementary stereotypes (Jost & Kay, 2005; Kay & Jost, 2003; Kay, Jost, Mandisodza, Sherman, Petrocelli, & Johnson, 2007). 3 Stereotypes as Attributions Intergroup Stereotype Packages Level of Analysis: Intergroup—Stereotypic traits derive meaning from comparisons to other relevant groups. Representative Publications: Jost & Kay, 2005; Glick et al., 2000, 2004 Intragroup Stereotype Packages Level of Analysis: Intragroup—Stereotypic traits derive meaning from comparisons to other stereotypic traits for a particular group. Representative Publications: Fiske et al., 2002; Cuddy et al., 2007 Individual Stereotypes Level of Analysis: Individual traits— Stereotypes are meaningful because of their variation on attributional dimensions (locus, controllability, stability) Representative Publications: Reyna, 2000, 2008; Reyna et al., 2006 Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Intergroup, Intragroup, and Individual Attributional Stereotypes. AN OVERVIEW OF STEREOTYPES AND ATTRIBUTIONS Before we can begin to understand how stereotypes guide attributional judgments, we must first understand the definition and function of stereotypes. In this chapter, stereotypes are defined as broad generalizations made about a group of people (Fiske, 1998; Reyna, 2000; Tajfel, 1981, 1982). Stereotypes are primarily cognitive in nature (Fiske, 1998) and can reflect positive (e.g., “Asians are good at math”) or negative (e.g., “welfare recipients are lazy”) beliefs about a group (cf. Glick & Fiske, 2001a). They can also include physical descriptions (“Asians are short”), traits (“gays are effeminate”), behaviors (“Mexicans like to get drunk”), attitudes (“Whites are racist”), or life outcomes or circumstances (“Blacks go to ghetto schools”) of the stereotyped group. But what makes a stereotype a stereotype is that the belief in question is applied broadly to a group of people and is often assumed of group members based solely on their group membership. Because these beliefs are overgeneralizations applied to large groups of people, they are often inaccurate, leading some to conclude that a stereotype is “…a fixed impression, 4 Mark Brandt and Christine Reyna which conforms very little to the facts it pretends to represent.…” (Katz & Braly, 1935, p. 181; however, see Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995, for a discussion of stereotype accuracy). Nevertheless, people rely on stereotypes to explain and predict the behavior of others, except under ideal informational or motivational circumstances (Kunda & Spencer, 2003). Attributions, on the other hand, are beliefs about the causes of a person’s or a group’s behavior, attitudes, outcomes, and location within a social structure (Andersen, Krull, & Weiner, 1996; Gilbert, 1998; Kelley, 1973; Reyna, 2008; Weiner, 1980). The need to explain and anticipate our social worlds has led many attribution theorists to conclude that people engage in attributional searches pervasively and automatically, especially following negative, unfamiliar, unexpected, or personally relevant events (Weiner, 1980; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988; Wong & Weiner, 1981). WHEN STEREOTYPES GUIDE ATTRIBUTIONS The idea that stereotypes are used to explain group behaviors and outcomes has a long history in social psychology. In the early part of the 20th century, scholars were beginning to identify stereotypes as a tool for explaining the social situation of groups (Allport, 1954; Katz & Braly, 1935) and for rationalizing group outcomes (Lippman, 1922). Others suggested that stereotypes help to justify ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1954/1961; Tajfel, 1981, 1982). More recently, the rationalizing function of stereotypes has garnered increased theoretical and empirical attention (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Jost & Banaji, 1994; McGarty, Yzerbyt,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Force of Fear: Police Stereotype Threat, Self-Legitimacy, and Support for the Use Force
    The force of fear: Police stereotype threat, self-legitimacy, and support for the use force Rick Trinknera,1, Phillip Atiba Goffb a,School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004; and b,Center for Policing Equity, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th Street, Room 6.63.14, New York, NY 10019 1To whom correspondences should be addressed. Email: [email protected]. Abstract increased endorsement of unreasonable use of force—in turn possibly further eroding Researchers have linked concern about public trust. These findings serve as the first appearing racist among police officers—a integration of two psychological literatures: kind of stereotype threat—to racial stereotype threat and procedural justice. disparities in the use of force. This study They also highlight an under-explored presents the first empirical test of the mechanism of urgent scientific and policy psychological mechanism linking stereotype concern. threat to support for police violence among officers. Drawing from psychology and Introduction criminology, we argue that threat undermines officers’ self-legitimacy, which Popular explanations of excessive police use encourages overreliance on force and of force—especially racial disparities in that coercion to maintain situational control. To force—often reduce to issues of officer test this argument, surveys were distributed characteristics (e.g., general aggression, to officers from the patrol division of a large racial bias). Despite the widespread urban police force. Respondents completed popularity of this lay theory, it is at odds measures assessing their experience of with the scientific consensus that attitudes stereotype threat, self-legitimacy, resistance towards the department’s use of force are relatively weak predictors of behavior, policy, approval of using excessive force, only explaining about 10% across contexts and endorsement of procedurally fair (Dovidio, 2001; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker, policing.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUP DYNAMICS 7. Group Behavior 7.1. Introduction Group
    GROUP DYNAMICS 7. Group Behavior 7.1. Introduction Group behavior in sociology refers to the situations where people interact in large or small groups. The field of group dynamics deals with small groups that may reach consensus and act in a coordinated way. Groups of a large number of people in a given area may act simultaneously to achieve a goal that differs from what individuals would do acting alone, called herd behavior. A large group, crowd or mob, is likely to show examples of group behavior when people gathered in a given place and time act in a similar way for example, joining a protest or march, participating in a fight or acting patriotically. Special forms of large group behavior are: Crowd "hysteria" Spectators - When a group of people gather together on purpose to participate in an event like theatre play, cinema movie, football match, a concert, etc. Public - Exception to the rule that the group must occupy the same physical place. People watching same channel on television may react in the same way, as they are occupying the same type of place, in front of television, although they may physically be doing this all over the world. Group behavior differs from mass actions, which refers to people who behave similarly on a more global scale (for example, shoppers in different shops), while group behavior refers usually to people in one place. If the group behavior is coordinated, then it is called group action. Swarm intelligence is a special case of group behavior where group members interact to fulfill a specific task.
    [Show full text]
  • Stereotypes and Prejudice
    Stereotypes and Prejudice Their Overt and Subtle Influence in the Classroom CONNIE T. WOLFE University of Michigan STEVEN J. SPENCER Hope College The authors examine overt and subtle forms of stereotyping and prejudice. Two theories that explain overt prejudice are reviewed: realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Although overt prejudice seems to have declined, subtle stereotyping is still pervasive. The authors review one theory, aversive racism theory, that explains this phenomenon. They also discuss two perspectives, attributional ambiguity and stereotype threat, which provide accounts of the impact of subtle racism. Both overt and subtle prejudice present challenges for the classroom. The authors describe one intervention called the jigsaw classroom that encourages work toward common goals and helps reduce the expression and impact of overt discrimination. A second intervention program, wise schooling, is presented, which aims to reduce the impact of subtle stereotypes by reducing stereotype threat. Why do prejudice and discrimination exist? Has overt racism been replaced by more subtle forms of prejudice? How does stereotyping affect its targets? In this article we describe two theories, realistic conflict theory and social identity theory, which provide an answer to the first question. We address the second question by noting that although overt discrimination has decreased, subtle forms of prejudice are still quite common and we describe one theory, aversive racism, that provides a compelling account of this change in the expression of prejudice. Finally, we answer the third question by describing two phenomena, attributional ambiguity and stereotype threat, that result from the pervasive nature of subtle stereotyping. This article is a selective overview of what social psychology has to say about these crucial issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Dynamics Chapter
    12 Group Dynamics Chapter Groups and Social Exchanges The Group Development Process Roles and Norm: Social Building Blocks for Group & Organizational Behavior Group Structure and Composition Threats to Group Effectiveness 12-3 Figure 12-1 Sociological Criteria of a Group Common identity 4 Collective norms 2 1 3 Two or more Collective goals Freely interacting individuals McGraw-Hill © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 12-4 Table 12-2 Formal Groups Fulfill Organizational Functions 1) Accomplish complex, independent tasks beyond the capabilities of individuals 2) Generate new or creative ideas or solutions 3) Coordinate interdependent efforts 4) Provide a problem-solving mechanism for complex problems 5) Implement complex decisions 6) Socialize and train newcomers McGraw-Hill © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 12-5 Table 12-2 cont. Formal Groups Fulfill Individual Functions 1) Satisfy the individual’s need for affiliation 2) Develop, enhance and confirm individual’s self- esteem and sense of identity 3) Give individuals an opportunity to test and share their perceptions of social reality 4) Reduce the individual’s anxieties and feelings of insecurity and powerlessness 5) Provide a problem-solving mechanism for social and interpersonal problems McGraw-Hill © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 12-7 Tuckman’s Five-Stage Theory Figure 12-3 of Group Development Performing Adjourning Norming Storming Return to Independence Forming Dependence/ interdependence Independence McGraw-Hill © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 12-8 Tuckman’s Five-Stage Theory Figure 12-3 cont. of Group Development Forming Storming Norming Performing “How can I “What do the Individual “How do I fit “What’s my best others expect Issues in?” role here?” perform my me to do?” role?” “Why are we fighting over “Can we agree “Can we do Group “Why are we who’s in on roles and the Issues here?” charge and work as a job properly?” who team?” does what?” McGraw-Hill © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Words May Also Hurt Me: a Comparison of United States and German Hate Speech Laws
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal Volume 41, Issue 5 2018 Article 9 Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, But Words May Also Hurt Me: A Comparison of United States and German Hate Speech Laws Deborah Levine∗ ∗ Copyright c 2018 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj NOTE STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS MAY ALSO HURT ME: A COMPARISON OF UNITED STATES AND GERMAN HATE SPEECH LAWS Deborah Levine* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................1294 II. THE INTERPLAY OF HATE SPEECH, DIGNITY, AND PSYCHOLOGY ...........................................................1295 A. Defining Hate Speech, Dignity, and Liberty ..........1296 B. The Pros and Cons of Hate Speech Regulation ......1298 1. Arguments in Favor of Regulation of Hate Speech ..............................................................1298 2. Arguments in Favor of Free Speech ...................1303 III. HISTORY AND LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY REGARDING HATE SPEECH ..............1305 A. History and Law Pertaining to Hate Speech in the United States ..........................................................1305 1. History and its Effect on Freedom of Speech ....1306 2. The Constitution, the First Amendment, and Statutes and Their Effect on Free Speech ........1308 3. Cases and Their Effect, or Lack Thereof, on Hate Speech Regulation ...........................................1311 a. Supreme Court Cases in Line with Chaplinksy and Brandenburg .......................................1313 * J.D. Candidate, 2019, Fordham University School of Law; B.A., 2016 Barnard College of Columbia University. I would like to thank Professor Abner Greene for his guidance and input in the earlier drafts, the editors of the Fordham International Law Journal, and the staff members of the Fordham International Law Journal who edited this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Gender Identification Effects on Stereotype Threat Lauren
    Exploring Gender Identification Effects on Stereotype Threat Lauren Westendorf Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Prerequisite for Honors in Psychology April 2015 © 2015 Lauren Westendorf EXPLORING GENDER IDENTIFICATION EFFECTS ON STEREOTYPE THREAT 2 Acknowledgements Special thanks to the Dean’s Office of Wellesley College and the Wellesley College Psychology Department for offering the funding needed to execute this project, to Professor Margaret Keane for all of her moral support and logistical help, to Phil Peake of Smith College and Amber Douglas of Mount Holyoke College for graciously assisting in my ambitious intercollegiate data collection, and to Professors Stephen Chen, Linda Carli, and Irene Mata for serving on my thesis defense committee. Endless gratitude, of course, goes to my devoted thesis advisor, Professor Julie Norem, for pushing me in the most wonderful ways, and to Professor Angela Bahns, for inspiring my interest in these topics with her incredible courses. Lastly, a very special thanks goes to my parents, the Wellesley Widows, and Lallie Lukens for their unwavering moral support. EXPLORING GENDER IDENTIFICATION EFFECTS ON STEREOTYPE THREAT 3 Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Techniques for Reducing Stereotype Threat ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Intragroup Dynamics and Intergroup
    Psychological Thought psyct.psychopen.eu | 2193-7281 Theoretical Analyses Influence of Intragroup Dynamics and Intergroup Relations on Authenticity in Organizational and Social Contexts: A Review of Conceptual Framework and Research Evidence Nadya Lyubomirova Mateeva*a, Plamen Loukov Dimitrovb [a] Department of Psychology, Institute of Population and Human Studies - Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia, Bulgaria. [b] Bulgarian Psychological Society, Sofia, Bulgaria. Abstract Despite their shared focus on influence of groups on individual, research bridging intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations as predictors of authentic and inauthentic (self-alienated) experience, behavior and interaction of individuals in organizational and social contexts is surprisingly rare. The goal of the present article is to highlight how understanding the reciprocal dynamic relationship between intragroup processes and intergroup relations offers valuable new insights into both topics and suggests new, productive avenues for psychological theory, research and practice development – particularly for understanding and improving the intragroup and intergroup relations in groups, organizations and society affecting authentic psychosocial functioning. The article discusses the complementary role of intergroup and intragroup dynamics, reviewing how intergroup relations can affect intragroup dynamics which, in turn, affects the authenticity of individual experiences, behaviors and relations with others. The paper considers the implications, theoretical and practical, of the proposed reciprocal relationships between intragroup and intergroup processes as factors influencing authentic psychosocial functioning of individuals in organizational and social settings. Keywords: group dynamics, intergroup relations, authenticity Psychological Thought, 2013, Vol. 6(2), 204±240, doi:10.5964/psyct.v6i2.78 Received: 2013-05-28. Accepted: 2013-07-01. Published (VoR): 2013-10-25. *Corresponding author at: Institute for Human Studies, Bl.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Overweight Stereotype Threat on Children's Motor Learning*
    PSIHOLOGIJA, 2020, Online First, 1–12 UDC: © 2020 by authors DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI200413036R The effect of overweight stereotype threat on children’s motor learning* Maryam Rabeinia, Esmaeel Saemi, and Rasool Abedanzadeh Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of overweight stereotype threat on children’s motor learning. Twenty-four children (Mage = 9.25 ± 0.53 years) were conveniently selected and randomly assigned into two groups of stereotype threat (with emphasis on individual characteristics, namely, overweight) and control group. The task consisted of maintaining the balance on the stabilometer during 30-second trials. One trial in the pre-test, 10 trials in the acquisition phase and 5 trials in the retention test were run. The findings revealed lower motor learning among the overweight stereotype group compared to the control group. Therefore, it is suggested that in similar situations, coaches can reduce stereotype threat emphasizing on the ineffectiveness of individual characteristics, i.e., overweight on motor performance of children thereby prevent performance and learning disruptions. Keywords: balance, overweight, stereotype threat, children Highlights: • Balance performance in children was lower in overweight stereotype threat. • Overweight stereotype threat conditions had a negative effect on motor learning as well as performance among children. • It is suggested that educators and practitioners decrease the stereotype threat by emphasizing the ineffectiveness of individual characteristics such as being overweight on performance and thereby prevent the destruction of children’s performance and learning. Corresponding author: [email protected] Note. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or finantial relations that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Positive Stereotypes, Negative Outcomes: Reminders of the Positive Components of Complementary Gender Stereotypes Impair Perform
    1 British Journal of Social Psychology (2018) © 2018 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Positive stereotypes, negative outcomes: Reminders of the positive components of complementary gender stereotypes impair performance in counter-stereotypical tasks Rotem Kahalon1* , Nurit Shnabel1 and Julia C. Becker2 1Tel-Aviv University, Israel 2Osnabruck University, Germany Gender stereotypes are complementary: Women are perceived to be communal but not agentic, whereas men are perceived to be agentic but not communal. The present research tested whether exposure to reminders of the positive components of these gender stereotypes can lead to stereotype threat and subsequent performance deficits on the complementary dimension. Study 1 (N = 116 female participants) revealed that compared to a control/no-stereotype condition, exposure to reminders of the stereotype about women’s communality (but not to reminders of the stereotype about women’s beauty) impaired women’s math performance. In Study 2 (N = 86 male participants), reminders of the stereotype about men’s agency (vs. a control/no- stereotype condition) impaired men’s performance in a test of socio-emotional abilities. Consistent with previous research on stereotype threat, in both studies the effect was evident among participants with high domain identification. These findings extend our understanding of the potentially adverse implications of seemingly positive gender stereotypes. While the message that negative stereotypes are anti-egalitarian and socially unacceptable is reinforced in contemporary Western society, positive stereotypes are prevalent and considered socially acceptable (Czopp, Kay, & Cheryan, 2015). The present research tested whether, despite their subjectively positive tone, positive gender stereotypes might lead to negative outcomes. In particular, we examined whether highlighting the positive stereotypes about women’s communality and men’s agency can lead to stereotype threat effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding
    SEPTEMBER 2009 Conflict is an inherent and legitimate part of social and political life, but in many places conflict turns violent, inflicting grave costs in terms of lost lives, degraded governance, and destroyed livelihoods. The costs and consequences of conflict, crisis, and state failure have become unacceptably high. Violent conflict dramatically disrupts traditional development and it can spill over FROM THE DIRECTOR borders and reduce growth and prosperity across entire regions. Religion is often viewed as a motive for conflict and has emerged as a key compo- nent in many current and past conflicts. However, religion does not always drive violence; it is also an integral factor in the peacebuilding and reconciliation process. Development assistance and programming does not always consider this link- age, nor does it fully address the complexity of the relationship between religion and conflict. As a main mobilizing force in many societies, proper engagement of religion and its leaders is crucial. This Toolkit is intended to help USAID staff and their implementing partners un- derstand the opportunities and challenges inherent to development programming in conflicts where religion is a key component. Like other guides in this series, this Toolkit discusses key issues that need to be considered when development as- sistance is provided in religious contexts and identifies lessons that been emerged from USAID’s experience implementing such programs. However compared to other types of programming, USAID experience engaging religion and religious actors to prevent conflict or build peace is modest. Thus, recognizing that there is still significantly more to be learned on this critical topic, this toolkit contains summaries of four actual USAID programs that have successfully engaged religious actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Group-Dynamics, Collaboration and Tutor Style on The
    Hammar Chiriac et al. BMC Medical Education (2021) 21:379 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02814-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The effect of group-dynamics, collaboration and tutor style on the perception of profession-based stereotypes: a quasi- experimental pre- post-design on interdisciplinary tutorial groups Eva Hammar Chiriac1* , Endre Sjøvold2 and Alexandra Björnstjerna Hjelm1 Abstract Background: Group processes in inter-professional Problem-Based Learning (iPBL) groups have not yet been studied in the health-care educational context. In this paper we present findings on how group-dynamics, collaboration, and tutor style influence the perception of profession-based stereotypes of students collaborating in iPBL groups. Health-care students are trained in iPBL groups to increase their ability to collaborate with other healthcare professionals. Previous research focusing iPBL in healthcare implies that more systematic studies are desired, especially concerning the interaction between group processes and internalized professional stereotypes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether changes in group processes, collaboration, and tutor style, influence the perception of profession-based stereotypes of physician- and nursing-students. Methods: The study is a quasi-experimental pre- post-design. The participants included 30 students from five different healthcare professions, mainly medicine and nursing. Other professions were physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy. The students were divided into four iPBL groups, each consisting of six to nine students and a tutor. Data were collected through systematic observation using four video-recorded tutorials. SPGR (Systematizing the Person Group Relation), a computer-supported method for direct and structured observation of behavior, was used to collect and analyze the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Identification Processes, Group Dynamics and Behaviour Of
    Volume 90 Number 870 June 2008 Social identification processes, group dynamics and the behaviour of combatants Emanuele Castano, Bernhard Leidner and Patrycja Slawuta* Emanuele Castano is Professor at the New School for Social Research, New York; Bernhard Leidner and Patrycja Slawuta are graduate students at the same institution. Abstract In this contribution, respect for international humanitarian law among combatants is considered from a social psychological perspective. According to this perspective, the social identities derived by individuals from their membership of social groups provide norms and values used by the individual to interpret events, form opinions and decide upon a course of action. We argue that group identities are particularly salient in combat situations, and that they have a profound influence on combatants’ decisions to respect or violate international humanitarian law. Violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) are carried out by individuals, but in order to understand such violations and hopefully prevent them from happening, we have to look at the determinants of such behaviour. We thus need to consider the group dimension, and more specifically the role played by social identities in framing the situation and guiding behaviour. By social identities we mean ‘‘that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group together with the * The writing of this article was facilitated by an NSF grant to the first author and by a Fellowship for Young Scientists granted by the Gottlieb Daimler- and Karl Benz Foundation to the second author. We wish to thank Mary Hoeveler for her editing suggestions with regard to an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]