Tma_2

TMA 02 ‘Drawing on appropriate evidence from Chapter 5, describe how groups can influence people in positive and negative ways’ If we are asked about our social identity we, more often than not, define ourselves as having many identities and roles by which we determine our place in society and how we like to be seen by others in society. Examples of how we define ourselves and illustrate which groups we belong to ,can be, identifying our family groups, groups of friends, work, and ethnic group. In the main body of this essay I will explore the experiments undertaken that set out, sometimes inconclusively, that groups, to a greater or lesser extent influence many facets of our behaviour. According to Taijfel et al (1971), the mere perception of another group’s existence can produce discrimination. This immediately highlights a negative view of group influence, to which there was some criticism, however it would be best to start with The Robbers Cave experiment(Sherif et al 1961).The first stage consisted of all the participants co-operating on a number of tasks and during that time a group identity was formed. This initial stage highlighted the positive influences of working together to achieve common goals for the benefit of the group, although by the end of the first stage the participants were divided into two separate groups each with its own defining identity. During the second stage of the element of competition between groups was introduced and this is where the most conflict arose. Negative behaviour in the form of the destruction of property and even fighting occurred. One group eventually won the competition and the losers even stole the prizes awarded to the winners. There was strong in-group and anti out-group preference, each group defining itself by collective positive qualities and conversely the opposition group were stereotyped by all its negative traits. Henri Taijfel et al (1971) went on to show that just the knowledge of another group can cause the development of pro in-group and anti out-group attitudes even without direct contact between the groups and are in reality only in a group because they are told that is so. By contrast Wetherell (1982) showed that intergroup conflict is not inevitable. It also showed the importance of cultural influence on behaviour. This time the two groups involved were of European origin in New Zealand and Polynesian children. It was observed that the European children demonstrated similar types of behaviour as was shown in the Sherif et al experiments. However the Polynesian children showed positive aspects of behaviour which was of benefit to both groups, which in turn was related to the value placed on generosity within their society. Asch’s (1955) line judgement experiments concluded that people are willing to conform to group pressure even though the collective view is seemingly wrong. The participants were asked to determine the length of line in a picture by having a choice of answers and attempting to give the correct answer. It was shown that on at least one occasion that a large majority of the group gave an obviously wrong answer in order to conform with the group. It must be noted that one of the participants acted as the independent variable and was testing the resolve of the participant to see whether or not the pressure to conform was irresistible or not. The results changed quite considerably when the participant was allowed to write down the answer as opposed to having to say it out loud. This shows indirectly that people will conform to group pressure even though that inwardly they disagree with the group. What was touched upon in the aforementioned reference to Wetherell can be seen in more detail in Kondo’s research (Spoors et al Starting With Psychology p106) and the influence of a strong culture having effect on an individual. It is worth noting Bruner’s views on an individual’s personality, which is, that we are flexible, adaptable and malleable for all the social settings one might oneself in, this idea emanating from the social constructionism theory. Kondo, a Japanese American spent over two years assimilating herself with Japanese culture found the difference between her own cultural upbringing in the USA and what she experienced in Japan almost as two polar opposites. How she was expected to act in Japan was initially overwhelming and she found this restrictive by comparison to her American upbringing. However Kondo began to change a great deal and began to act in a manner that was expected from her by the strict rules of the Japanese culture. An example being just in the way that she held her posture as soon as the head of the household was home. She found herself adapting to the roles expected of her and was defined by these, those of being a daughter, a guest, a young woman but nevertheless a great deal of inner conflict arose, which in its fundamental state was a culture clash. This can be likened to the pro in-group anti out group theories mentioned earlier and also demonstrating willingness to ignore inner beliefs in order to outwardly fit in with the group. Though initially the experience of Kondo seemed to be a negative one as she gradually assimilated she highlighted the positive aspects of the change in culture, an example being her performance of the Japanese tea ceremony for which she received high praise from her teacher in conducting the ceremony as would a ‘real’ Japanese lady. To conclude, it can be seen from the aforementioned examples that people have a tendency to want to conform to group patterns of behaviour. Whereupon we may state that being a member of a specific group or groups has beneficial and positive value equally it can have a negative effect, which in extreme cases can cause considerable harm to society. Being part of a group affects our behaviour either in a positive or negative way and we may well adjust our individual beliefs in order to conform to the standard that the group requires. As in any democratic society we sacrifice some of our personal sovereignty in order that society as a whole can be managed in a structured and protective manner, similarly we can sacrifice our individual beliefs and behaviour in order to fit in with a particular group or groups. References. Spoors. Dyer, E.W.and Findlay, L (2010) Starting With Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University TASK 1-Part A Brief Essay Plan 1. Introduction- How the question will be answered and what will be set out in the main body of essay 2. Main Body-Examples of negative and positive behaviour as a result of experiments (Taijfel, Wetherell Sherif, Asch and Kondo) Note different theories and also mention the criticism of some experiments being somewhat artificial and inconclusive also theories on how our social being is fluid and adaptable, and conformity to group, conflict of outward conformity and the influence of culture on behaviour. 3. Conclusion- Sum up try and mention the balance of group influenced negative and positive behaviour. TASK 2 With regard to the feedback from my tutor in respect of TMA 01, in this essay I have tried eliminate some of the fundamental grammatical mistakes and also attempted to try and make the essay flow as a whole piece of work by the use of appropriate connecting words. Also keeping the introduction concise and laying out what would be discussed in the main body of the essay. I have also tried to make sure that the examples given can be related to each other bearing in mind the question that we were asked to answer.