Anyway, since this is technically the final post (I say technically for I would love to continue on blogging yet I would have to muster enough intrinsic motivation to do so), I thought it would be apt to reminisce on the 12 weeks of social psychology that I've been through (Tomorrow's the last day! *ehem I didn't mean to sound estatic* ).

I must say that I've learnt a lot in this course; and this is not because I'm trying to self-justify all the effort I've put in (not that it was much heh) for the sake of my self-esteem. Certainly, the most important thing that I've learnt would be to never underestimate the power of the situation – the force that drives people to do the things they do (not all, but some, in my opinion). The more fundamental lesson one can gather from social psychology would be to not leave any stone unturned in seeking answers – some things or phenomena just can't be explained through individuals.

While it has been fun learning all about social psyhological theories and principles, it has been eye-opening and enlightening as well; not forgetting to mention how easy it has been to apply social psychology to life. Even as I'm typing this now, social psychologists would probably theorize my behaviour as that of obeying authority or following a social norm and what-have-you. Yet, it would be worrying should one just stick to social psychological theories to explain everything that happens in this world of ours. We must not forget that there is a myriad of causes to anything; every individual, society or situation differs. Let me just leave with the knowledge that I've gained and integrate it with others that I've learnt, applying everything to understand more about why things happen the way they do.

Till then, I bid thee farewell.

Goodbye, we say;

Till the next time, write I may.

What I do or say,

Differs tomorrow and today.  

Arena

(known to self and others)

able, adaptable, confident, intelligent, observant

Blind Spot

(known only to others)

calm, caring, cheerful, clever, dependable, energetic, extroverted, friendly, giving, happy, helpful, independent, ingenious, knowledgeable, logical, mature, nervous, religious, responsive, self-assertive, sensible, warm, witty

Façade

(known only to self)

complex

Unknown

(known to nobody)

accepting, bold, brave, dignified, idealistic, introverted, kind, loving, modest, organised, patient, powerful, proud, quiet, reflective, relaxed, searching, self-conscious, sentimental, shy, silly, spontaneous, sympathetic, tense, trustworthy, wise

All Percentages

able (16%) accepting (0%) adaptable (8%) bold (0%) brave (0%) calm (16%) caring (8%) cheerful (33%) clever (8%) complex (0%) confident (33%) dependable (8%) dignified (0%) energetic (8%) extroverted (8%) friendly (33%) giving (8%) happy (16%) helpful (16%) idealistic (0%) independent (16%) ingenious (16%) intelligent (50%) introverted (0%) kind (0%) knowledgeable (25%) logical (8%) loving (0%) mature (8%) modest (0%) nervous (8%) observant (8%) organised (0%) patient (0%) powerful (0%) proud (0%) quiet (0%) reflective (0%) relaxed (0%) religious (25%) responsive (16%) searching (0%) self-assertive (8%) self-conscious (0%) sensible (41%) sentimental (0%) shy (0%) silly (0%) spontaneous (0%) sympathetic (0%) tense (0%) trustworthy (0%) warm (50%) wise (0%) witty (25%)

Created by the Interactive Johari Window on 18.3.2006, using data from 12 respondents.
You can make your own Johari Window, or view Syuhada’s full data.

———–

Just a little extra to improve my self-concept. This Johari’s Window is not very valid, for surely, my self-concept consists of more than 6 adjectives. Nonetheless, isn’t it always surprising that your self-concept is, more often than not, different from what others think of you? In my case, rather, how much of myself do I reveal to others? I’m still pretty much a closed book; a chameleon who changes with every situation, compared to a person who remains the same and true to himself/herself at all times. Of course, in social psychology, there is no such person, for they talk about the power of the situation and its influences on a person.

Still, I like to call myself adaptable, just to make myself happier.

Certainly, war has evolved over the years – from fighting one-on-one in the battlefield literally to the mere pressing of a button to drop a missile or bomb on a target from up above – all of these certainly have implications on the actors. It’s much more difficult to inflict hurt, assuming one is normal and has a heart, when the intended victim is so much nearer as compared to when there is a distance between you and the victim. This is why it is so much easier (for the lack of a better word) to drop a bomb on a target. You won’t know immediately if you missed it and accidentally hit a village filled with innocent people, women and children. You won’t see immediately the horrifying consequences of your actions right in front of your eyes. The same I would say of those high-ranking officials hiding in camps and offices barking orders to just-enlisted teenage soldiers shooting in the frontline and suffering the physical and psychological consequences instead. The same I would say of governments who decide to invade/declare war/insert-euphemism-here one fine day and remain unaware of the real situation at ground zero. Power is a dangerous tool for people who do not know how to use it. Then again, who knows?

There is the principle of “obedience to authority” in war which attempts to answer the perennial question of why these ordinary people turn into heartless killers in times of war. They were not madmen; rather to quote Aronson et. al. (2005), “ordinary people exposed to extraordinary social influences” (p. 273). In the My Lai massacre, there was informational influence when the behaviour of the other soldiers made the killing seem like the right thing to do and there was normative influence when the soldiers wanted to avoid rejection by their peers and superior officers (Aronson et. al., 2005). Forget rejection, a stronger reason to obey authorities would be for personal safety reasons, ie. survive and preserve thy life. Nevertheless, the thought of how strong these pressures of conformity can be is certainly worrying; and you begin to wonder about the ramifications of obeying the wrong authority.

—————– 

Reference: Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. and Akert, R. M. (2005). Social Psychology: Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.  

For a little inspiring reading on a mother writing about My Lai Massacre to her kids, read this. Spread the peace, love and joy.

We all know that some of the antecedents for groupthink to occur would be there being a directive leader and a highly cohesive group. Applying this to real-life situations, eg. groupwork in school, would groupthink be less likely to occur if the group is a self-managed team? Having taken MGMT001 Leadership & Teambuilding, we learnt that there is a difference between a team and a group, with a team being more cohesive and having a goal to work towards to versus a group where the members just work together to complete a task. Now, a self-managed team, would be a team where there is no autocratic/directive leader and everyone is equally motivated to reach their goal, which I believe is an ideal situation for teams to be successful. This then brings me to the question, does groupthink necessarily need a directive leader to occur? Or could it be that some team members are dominating the discussion, even bypassing the leader and making the leader himself susceptible to groupthink?

Ah, just some food for thought and off I go to watch the critically-acclaimed and Oscar-winning “The Pianist”. Perhaps I’ll write about it next time.

————

So I sit here horrified at 1.05 am looking at this ‘weekly’ journal filled with 4 official entries and week 9 of school has barely begun. Nonetheless, I shall try to be positive in this 5th entry, with the emphasis on the number 5 to make me slightly happier and slightly more optimistic, especially with a midterm laden with work break that has just ended.

With a midterm looming just around the corner (tomorrow!), it simply does not make sense to be staying up this late (and writing this). Do forgive me whilst I try to write some sense over here.  

I know that this is really sad, and truly I am to be pitied, for the only thing that I’m currently looking forward to is watching American Idol every week on Wed – Fri nights. Let’s try to reconcile my favourite show and social psychology, in this case, the notion of conformity.

Interestingly, the North American culture is such that it is against the idea of conformity. Individualism is a badge worn with pride and the underdog is supported, to paraphrase the textbook. Yet, studies have shown that most of these very individuals do conform, even if done so unknowingly. Putting this into perspective, and in the context of American Idol, where the winner is voted by the audience, (let us ignore the idea of producers rigging the show and what-have-you), conformity here occurs on both sides – the contestants as well as the audience voters, bringing us to a gazillion questions.

Looking at the contestants, will they try to conform to the cookie cutter of the music industry – where having talent is not enough but having the right image is necessary to succeed? Will they try to conform to the ideals of the audience, to be popular and get the votes of the audience to be the next American Idol?

As for the audience, will they conform to the people around them and support whoever is the most popular? Or will they support the underdog? Will their votes be based on talent or looks? Will their votes be based on their own critique of the contestants, or will they conform to the critiques of others? So many questions to answer, and it’s 2.07 am, perhaps at the end of the American Idol season, I will attempt to answer them.

So who shall be crowned American Idol this year? Will it be the really handsome Ace Young, whose smouldering good looks melt the hearts of girls (and gays alike) every time he sings? Will it be the really talented Taylor Hicks, who is really into singing but whose looks are far beyond his true age? Or will it be my favourite Katharine McPhee – who has the total package – great vocals and such a pretty face?

Excuse me while I watch with bated breath and ogle at the good-lookers appreciate the talent on the show.

Love - and what a four-letter word it is. The young constantly think about it; the elders pooh it; the romantics claim they live it. So why do we love, or rather, what is this thing that we call love?

Reciprocal liking – Could love be a manifestation of the self-fulfilling prophecy? After all, who doesn’t like to be liked? A is attracted to B and shows it; B (depending on the level of self-esteem) feels flattered (justifying the attraction possibly to B’s good looks and A’s good taste) and is more likely to behave in the same manner towards A; B spends more time with A and as according to the theory of proximity, voila! Love blossoms. Of course, if B is already suffering from low self-esteem, B would probably think that A is trying to be funny or playing a mean trick on him/her and react adversely to A’s attraction, setting in motion another self-fulfilling prophecy with different results.

Evidently, life is never that simple. What made A attracted to B in the first place? Was it physical attractiveness? Charisma? The way her hair flew in the wind? The way his eyes twinkle when he smiles, giving you that funny feeling in your stomach? Given that there can be a million and one reasons for people to fall in love, should we even try to study it and assign theories to the phenomenon? Would a theory even provide sufficient explanation to why people fall in love, or so they claim? Would such explanation even be applicable to all?

Many have tried to define love, labelling the different types of love such as passionate love, fatuous love and more. Yet who’s to take the time to classify what kind of love theirs is when love hits them hard?

On a lighter note, I thought that the ladder theory was a pretty interesting (and unabashedly true) theory with regards to female-male interaction. Even if you had already heard of it, it’d still be enlightening, at the very least, amusing, to visit the rest of the site.

So have a great time with your loved ones tonight, while the quintessential SMU student in me ploughs through her neverending work and burns the midnight oil, single yet contented.

Yes, you read it here. American Idol IS the epitome of real-life examples of cognitive dissonance theory. Where else can you watch people who are tone-deaf, go in front of the judges, get rejected, react by either 1)cursing 2)crying 3)feeling sad (ie. dissonance), then attempt to remove the dissonance by swearing in front of the cameras that 1)they are the world’s greatest singers, 2)they’ll be making plenty of albums and signing autographs in the future, 3)the judges are making a huge mistake? It is really unbelievable. 

And off I go to watch the first 10 minutes of Idol that I missed earlier on.

Not only are we biologically tuned to form schemas and use them in our daily decision-making, our world is littered with things that pander to these very schemas and affirm them. Terrorists or freedom fighters? That will depend on which paper you pick up. Tabloids obsessing on the private details of celebrities’ breakups make us have the schema of celebrities’ marriages being shortlived. Movies have stereotyped characters like the hero who is all strong and able to overcome all odds, the typical bad guy, the damsel in distress and more. Who doesn’t like to predict how the storyline of a movie would go, pretending to be all clever when all the director or writer did was to reaffirm our schemas? It then becomes a question of who comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, did the media maketh us or we maketh the media?

It’s important to take care of appearances because first impressions count, they tell us. In fact, the statement could have applied to a number of situations, from that very important job interview to the first blind date you’re getting ready for. Will we ever be rid of the hidden evils of schemas, where people judge us before they get to know us? 

Granted, schemas do have their uses, from making us efficient in our day-to-day decision-making to warning us of the dangers that lie ahead. Rationality, however, is a thinly-veiled assumption that we have to make of the people around us, or rather, we could always pray that the world will indeed be a better place in the end.

High expectations = good results? Lest we all get lackadaisical and complacent, there is a need to remind ourselves that the self-fulfilling prophecy is a two-way thing. The input from an actor led to a response or feedback from another actor, leading to both behaving in such a way that realizes the prophecy initiated by the former.

To put it simply, the self-fulfilling prophecy is akin to the cycle of poverty. The rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. One is almost resigned to fate in a sense, mired in the same level of poverty for years and the years to come; in this case, one is stuck with the initial perception borne by another.

Granted, there is no need to get all pessimistic and helpless. As mentioned earlier, it is a two-way thing after all. Many success stories have come abound as anomalies to the prophecy, surpassing expectations. Even yours truly, who had the unfortunate experience of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the negative way a couple of years ago, would have turned out quite differently had she not chosen to go against her circumstances and prove the expectations wrong. Clearly, the individual has a choice – to fulfil the prophecy or to rise above it.

This comes to the issue of intrinsic motivation, which has been sidelined. Then again, how many people realize that they are succumbing to the self-fulfilling prophecy? Many do it almost automatically. To make a choice, one has to realize oneself that there are options available for the taking.

On hindsight, since I’m doing Industrial and Organizational Psychology this term, looking at the implications of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the workplace would be immensely useful as well. For more, go to this link and this.

For politics, there’s an article by Guardian Unlimited and the list goes on. 

It is pretty evident (from a Google search) that the self-fulfilling prophecy can be applied to so many fields, even right at home within the family. Of course, learning about the self-fulfilling prophecy makes us ponder on the dangers of relying on mere intuition and schemas. How many of us actually take the time to embark on controlled thinking before we make a decision or form an opinion? Or do we just take the easy way out?

Still, I wouldn’t mind getting an A+ for this course and fulfill expectations. Now, if only things were that simple.