As I have mentioned before in my blogs I have played sports
for the majority of my life. As a child I played soccer, tennis, and basketball
(as embarrassing as it is, I also played on my high school bowling team). As such, I have played in many
important or clutch games with many spectators throughout my life. It is hard
for me to do (and I hope I do not come off arrogant when I say this) but I was
good at the sports I played (with the exception for basketball – I am not very
tall – as such, this is my justification for not being good J). However, I am good
at both tennis and soccer. Specifically, when I was younger soccer dominated my
life. This notion, in combination with the fact that I was one of the better
players on the team, I had a lot of playing time. To this point, there was
always added pressure for me to do well especially during important games.
However, for me this was never really an issue. When my coach needed me to
score a goal, the majority of the time I came through and did what was asked of
me.
This notion is in line with the concept of social facilitation. This
concept basically says that in the presence of others or spectators we become
aroused (not sexually!!) and this arousal enables a dominant response that will
either hurt or help the individual (Zajonc, 1965). Basically this means that,
in the presence of others, people will react to specters basted on their
dominant response with respect to the activity (Zajonc, 1965). The dominate
response in this situation is basically how easy, comfortable, or good you at
the activity or ‘how well learned it is’ (Zajonc, 1965). That is, if you have
an audience and you are performing a new challenging task or activity your
dominant response that is elicited will lead you to not do as well; in contrast,
if you are performing in front of an audience, completing a task or activity
you are good at, then your dominant response will lead you to be more
successful based on the presence of the audience (Zajonc, 1965). So for me, in
the presence of others or a large audience when I play soccer or other
activities that I am good at, I perform better. That’s why when I played soccer
and it was our final game that I actually tended to play better because of the
added number of spectators that usually come to such important games.
(n=428)
Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.
Being one of the various students
in our Social Psychology class who also took research methods with Dr.
Giuliano, I knew in advance that I would be required to choose a trade book to
read for class. I was very interested in picking a book that interested me. In
addition to a psychology major I am a sociology minor and have always been
interested in issues of race, stereotypes and prejudice. Specifically, I took a
great interest in this topic while abroad.
While abroad I took a
cross-cultural psychology course and one of the activities we did in class
sparked my interest in stereotypes. The activity required everyone in the class
to write down a one-word stereotype that they believe they are ‘held to’ (e.g.,
women, athlete, Latina, Jewish, etc.). From here we all walked around in order
to see what everyone had written down, as we had taped the slips of paper with
the written stereotypes to our shirts. Next, we then turned the paper over and
wrote one sentence describing the one-word stereotype (e.g., I’m an athlete so
I can’t be smart). Once this step was complete we then whet around the room and
discussed our written stereotypes and after we have given our personal accounts
of our stereotypes, our professor then asked if anyone knew a individual or was
friend with anyone who was ‘grouped’ into these stereotypes but did not
necessarily conform to the stereotype that they were ‘associated’ with. I
thought this was a wonderful exercise because I believe that it helped everyone
to see that, yes there are categories that we are all grouped into based on one
thing or another, however we all had personal experience with individuals that
did not fulfill their associated stereotypes (this making even more sense when
we learned about the contact
hypothesis (Allport, 1954)).
The lasting impact of the activity
I was involved in while abroad was what made me want to choose the trade book
about stereotypes as soon as I read the title and synopsis online. As such, I
choose the book Whistling Vivaldi: How
Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do by Claude M. Steele. Steele’s
book basically goes into the concept of stereotype
threat (Steele, 1997, 2010). Specifically, Steele uses personal
accounts of his research and experiences to explain or show how common and wide
spread stereotypes are and how they can affect us in everyday aspects of life.
He dives into deep detail of his research at Michigan and Stanford and talks
about the many other social psychologists that contributed along the way. Steele starts off with personal examples
of racism he has experienced in his life then seamlessly goes into what
stereotype threat is and his research to asses the extent to which stereotype
threat exists in specific groups (i.e., academic achievement and race; women
and math). From here Steel does a good job of giving more examples of
stereotype threat in a few other groups; he notes that if it stereotype threat
does exist within women and math, race and academic achievement and his
research is correct, it should, in theory, be seen in various other stereotyped
groups.
After noting the various
stereotypes and their strengths and how the threat is elicited and their affect
(i.e., identity threat (Steele,
2010)), Steele does leave the reader with a glimmer of hope. After feeling
helpless due to the adverse effects of stereotypes, to which the reader has
little control, Steele does finally leave the reader with solutions or as he
calls it, “a new hope” (Steele, 2010).
Steele leaves the reader with some take home points with reference to
how to reduce the stereotype threat as it would affect them within their own
lives. This is an especially important segment of the book because as we have
learned, the fear and
salience that the stereotype threat elicits within the reader is only effective
in so far as solutions are given, which Steele does (Steele, 2010; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Was the book a good
choice and whom would I recommend it to:
Upon completion of my trade book, I
believe that this book was a good choice. I acknowledge that I have lived a
very fortunate life, I have grown up in a time where being a white women born
to a middle class family affords me certain privileges. As such, I think
reading this book has helped me to fully understand not only how pervasive
stereotypes and stereotype threat are but also the negative effects that they
can elicit. I think reading this book was a good choice because I now have
better understanding of what others go through, even today, when many see
racism and stereotypes as a thing of the past (which it is not). I have heard
that to walk in another man’s shoes is to understand his position, and by
choosing this book I think that I have been able to do this, even if only
through Steele and other’s personal examples. The information and real life
examples I have gained through reading this trade book helped to reassure me
that I made the correct decision in choosing my book.
Taking these notions into account I
believe that I would love to recommend this book. Specifically, I would
recommend the book to everyone who wants a better understanding of the
pervasiveness of stereotypes and stereotype threat. However, I would make sure
to note that this book can be psychology heavy at times. That is, although
Steele does a wonderful job of explaining everything in terms your grandma
could understand, most of the time, he can sometimes focus on the research side
so much that it can be easy to get lost and thus it becomes necessary to reread
the information a second time to ensure true comprehension. I would not
recommend this book to those that have little background or knowledge of
research, due to the fact that some of the nuances or strengths of Steele’s
research and findings may then become lost – because I think some of the most
significant findings result from the disparities and congruencies with
replications and comparisons to other research. I think that this is a great
book for Social Psychology because we did not delve too deeply into the
specific concept of stereotype threat and as such this book can be a great
component to lecture when covering prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination.
How applicable was
this book to everyday life?
When
I was first reading this book (i.e., before getting halfway through the book) I
thought this book was dull and had very little relevance to my life, because I
was white and I was not involved in the field of math. However, after
continuing to read I was pleasantly surprised and found myself finding more and
more ways that I related to the book. Specifically, I first started to question
my aversion to math related courses despite my ability related to math. I have
always been good at math; it is something that has always clicked for me
(unlike vocabulary, grammar, and literature). While reading this book, Steele
explicitly lays out how women may feel stereotype threat related to math
because our culture tends to condition or lead men towards the fields of math
and science while conditioning women towards the fields relating to humanities.
As such, while reading this book I became overtly conscious of why I decided to
not peruse math. In my head I was thinking, well, it is because I do not enjoy
math – then I got to thinking is this just how I rationalized the notion that
as a woman I should not be in the field of math? As such, did I resolved this dissonance by telling myself
that I did not enjoy math (Festinger, 1957)? Although I have post-decision dissonance related
to my choice in psychology rather than the field of math and or science, Steele
still make many good points that made me question my own life decisions (Festinger,
1957).
Furthermore,
in reading this book and reading Steele’s many examples of stereotype threat I
began to think about the stereotypes I think I am associated with and how
stereotype threat may directly affect me. For example, I was raised Jewish. As
such, I think I have heard every Jew joke imaginable and almost every
stereotype associated with this identity. I have been asked if my father and or
mother are doctors or lawyers. People assume I can always pay for them, since I
am Jewish I must have lots of money. When people see me, and they find out that
I am Jewish they ask, if you are Jewish then why do you not have a big nose? I
have seen and heard almost everything; this notion in combination with reading
Steele’s book has made me think of certain situations in my life and question
whether I acted a certain way because I wanted to or did I do so for fear of
adhering to stereotypes associated with me.
This notion of stereotype threat for
me was specifically difficult because the stereotypes related to Jews (i.e.,
the ones I feel are mostly associated with me) are not always negative – so it
became harder for me to relate stereotype threat, as Steele referenced within
his book, to my life. However, I can remember this one time when I was younger
and my friends wanted to go out to the movies and dinner. The place they chose
for dinner was very nice, to the point that I wasn’t sure if I had enough money
to just spend on food (from a very young age I was given an allowance and was
told I had to budget my money). However, because I was Jewish they all assumed
I was just being a ‘penny pinching Jew’ because there was no way I just did not
have the money (because they had told me/eluded to this notion before). Not
wanting to be confrontational and being aware of this, I made up an excuse not
to go out with my friends in order to avoid this ordeal altogether. Although
this may not be exactly what Steele had in mind when he wrote this book, this is
what it elicited in my mind. These few examples were as close as I could get to
applying the principles of the book to my personal life.
About the Author:
Claude
M. Steele is currently the Dean for The School of Education at Stanford
University, however he has worked at many prestigious universities including
the University of Washington, University of Michigan, and Stanford (Steele,
2010). He has a Masters and PhD in Social Psychology from Ohio State University
and honorary degrees from the University of Michigan, the University of
Chicago, Yale University, Princeton University, and from the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County (Steele, 2009). I believe that Steele is an expert
on the issues not only because of his personal experiences, but because he has
published some of the foremost articles in the field relating to stereotype
threat. This book is not only creditable but also scholarly. Steele mentions
many of the other scholars he worked with within the book, citing that even
though they were undergrads or graduate students at the time they themselves
are also now some of the leading psychologists in their respective fields. The
sheer volume of research cited within Steele’s novel would be enough for an individual
who is processing centrally
to be convinced of his position, but in addition, the credentials of those who
conducted the research with Steele add to the validity of the work (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986).
What I did and did
not like about the book:
What
I liked about the book and what I found most useful was the amount of examples
used within the book. Although at times I felt the book was getting very
research heavy, there was always a real world example to back it up (whether it
related to Steele or another individual). I think from a psychology student
standpoint the books greatest strength was the research backing up each of the
arguments. However, other individuals, who are different from me, might find
the way he chose to organize the book its greatest strength. The way it is
organized helps to the reader to first understand what stereotype threat is,
how pervasive the problem is, how it relates to identity threat and its related
effects and finally solutions for this issue; such that, even if the research
does start to get overwhelming, the organization can help to keep the reader
afloat.
What
I liked least about the book what the sole focus on race. I will concede that
stereotype threat is a major issue especially relating to those of various
races, however I think the book could have been stronger if Steele had gone
into more detail about how stereotype threat can affect more than just those of
a different race. To this point, most of the research Steele references to
revolves around race and it would have been nice to see more research relating
to stereotype threat and sexuality and other stereotypes (i.e., being an
athlete, nerd, part of an exclusive organization [sorority/fraternity] etc. –
these examples being explicitly pertinent to myself).
Take home point:
If
I could narrow it down to just one thing and I had to come up with the take
home point or message of this book, I think it would be that stereotype threat
is a real issue that effects or can effect anyone and it is only through
acknowledging this that we can help to improve its pervasiveness; as such,
through changing critical feedback, improving a group’s critical mass in a
setting, fostering intergroup conversations, and by promoting affirmations
relating to a sense of self we can work on reducing the phenomenon of
stereotype threat (Steele, 2010).
(n= 2,278)
**Because this blog is longer than most, here are two videos to cheer you up...well cheer you up or offend you, who's to say**
I have always known that I am a gullible individual. To this
point, so does my family; they will not let me watch infomercials, the ads for
the SPCA (with the sad accompaniment), or anything else of that nature. After
thinking back overs some of the decisions I have made I have come to realize
that I am very likely to succumb to compliance
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2007). That is, compliance can be seen as doing something or agreeing to do
something without a direct request (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007). Through looking at this concept in more detail in terms of my life, I
have come to realize that I have fell prey and committed (or used) many
different compliance
techniques. Specifically, I use
the door-in-the-face
technique on my parents quite often (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007). This techniques basically says that we can get people to comply to our
wants by initially asking for something that is so large, that it is out of the
realm of possibility and get told no (or rejected), which is then subsequently
followed by asking for something smaller that is most likely granted or agreed
upon (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2007).
As a child (and I have to admit, even to this day) I have
been an argumentative child. I have always been told I should go into
litigation or law because of my ability to keep arguing no matter what (my
father even has stated I should go into politics and utilize my skills for
filibusters – because I keep on talking). In line with this notion, whenever my
siblings or friends wanted to get something, or gain approval/permission to do
something, they would ask for my help. My skills specifically came in handy
when my sisters and I had had enough and it was time to finally convince my
parents to get a dog. Although most individuals might go the with the foot-in-the-door technique which
entails initially asking for a small request, which is then followed by later
asking for an even bigger request (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007); thus we would just ask to go pet the dogs, walk them, ogle at them,
etc. and then later ask for the
dog. However, my parents were more attuned to the foot-in-the-door technique (i.e., they can pick up on it),
so I usually decided to go with the huge exaggeration, followed by a smaller
request (it proved to work for my family) (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004;
Cialdini, 2007). That is, when it came time for a dog, I had all of my friends
come over and bring all of their dogs. When my parents then came home, I said
look mom and dad aren’t all these dogs so cute (there were about 10 -my friends
all owning multiple dogs). I then promptly stated, “I think we should get three
so that they can keep each other company”, (fully knowing that they would not
go for one let alone three very easily). My parents both had a petrified look
on their fact. Being attuned to this look, I promptly asked my friends to go
upstairs and wait for me while I talked to my parents. I turned to my parents
and they said that there was no way I could get three dogs. So I looked at them
and said, “That’s fine, but wouldn’t it be nice to have at least JUST ONE dog.
It would be easier to take care of one rather than three .” With this thought
in my parents head, they discussed and my sisters and I were able to get a dog.
He is the love of my life – and although my mom says it’s the biggest mistake
she has ever made, he is the best thing to happen to our family!
(n=640)
*** and for the weekly video*** (thanks to a friend...)
I am a very anxiety prone person. This is something that I
like to avoid at all costs, like most individuals. I have come to realize that
sometimes I resort to changing my attitude, or the way I think about something
based on the anxiety I feel. According to Leon Festinger (1957) this is in line
with his Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
In essence, this theory states that when our attitudes are not inline with our
behaviors individuals tend to, or are motivated, to reduce this tension or
anxiety (Festinger, 1957). I can remember specifically, this one time I had
agreed or decided to go black Friday shopping with my sister (something I would
never do because I do not really enjoy shopping). Being the naive individual
that I can be, I thought we would go around nine or ten in the morning, since
we were both people who appreciated sleeping in (my sister more that myself,
thus leading me to my initial hypothesis of us leaving later in the morning).
After sleeping for a couple of hours, my older sister come in at four in the
morning and said we were going shopping. I was BEYOND pissed off, having only
gone to bed a coupe of hours before she came in my room and told me we were
about to leave. After hours of shopping, and NOTHING to show for I might add
(other than a belly full of free coffee and ONE reusable shopping bag), we
arrived back at our house. Once we arrived home, our parents greeted us and
asked how shopping went. Despite standing in a line for hours in the bitter
cold and being too far back in the line to get what we wanted (because they
sold out right as it was our turn), I still promptly responded with, “It wasn’t
that bad! I actually kind of liked going out for black Friday.” I instinctively
stated this without thinking.
Now that I think back to this incident I do not remember if
I did actually had a good time or if I was succumbing to the insufficient justification
perspective within cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). This theory stating that, an individual will freely engage
in a behavior that is not inline with their attitude without receiving a large
reward (Festinger, 1957). Specifically for me, because ONE free reusable tote
bag and a free SMALL cup of crappy coffee wasn’t enough to justify my behavior
of enjoying black Friday shopping, I had to adjust my attitude and thus I
decided that I did not mind shopping and that going out on black Friday was not
that bad – because otherwise I would feel stupid and unhappy about wasting my
time shopping on black Friday (after only receiving one reusable tote bag and
small cup or crappy coffee).
I have never really though of myself as a gullible or naïve
individual. I have trusted that I make rational decisions that are independent
of my emotion or other factors and solely rely on the facts of the argument.
However, after learning about the two routs to persuasion I learned, that in a
way, my previously held notion might not be as true as I would like to think.
After honestly thinking about myself I have come to learn that I tend to take
the peripheral route to the
persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). That is, when it comes to
listening and making judgments or decisions based upon communication and or
interactions, I tent to rely on superficial cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). I do not take the peripheral route with reference to persuasion all of the
time, but I especially did when I was younger. I thought that if you sounded
like you knew what you were talking about then I should believe you. However, I
sadly found out this may not be the case. For example, when I was younger I
always listened to my older sister’s friends. I thought, “hey, these girls are
older, they are in high school, they have to know what they are talking about.”
I was completely WRONG. FALSE. I was persuaded to exchange or give my older
sister and her friends my twenty dollars for their five dollars because, as
they explained, “a five is bigger than a two.” Despite the notion that I knew
twenty was bigger than five, I had to believe my sister and he friends because
they were older and knew more than I did. They even held out their hands to
reiterate that five was in fact larger than two. I could not dispute facts like
that.
My acquiescence did not end with my sister or sadly to admit
with me being a young child. I was even persuaded to buy certain items from an infomercial
once (I will decline to say at what age), because I was so convinced by the
commercial. I sadly, only relied on superficial cues and saw that it worked on
television and thought that it would without a doubt work for me as well. Which
was not the case.
After coming to terms with this notion, that I take a peripheral route to persuasion,
I have thus started to think more critically about what information convinces
me in hopes of soon becoming an individual that takes the central route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In
other words, I hope to become an individual that makes decisions based on facts
and the strength of an argument while thinking critically (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986). I hope to make decisions based on the fact and not just based
on superficial attributes in the future.
(n = 471)
I refuse to get tricked out of my money again like these
children were tricked out of their candy.
I decided to be a different person for a day.
That is, I chose to accomplish my daily activities or tasks in a ‘non-normal
way’ with respect to my normal way of acting or behaving. Specifically, as a high self-monitor I am very
concerned with what others think and how they perceive me (Snyder, 1987). In
line with this notion and the fact that I grew up with two sisters, I am very
conscious of asking permission for everything I do – I try to appease others
more than myself in addition to being VERY indecisive. With this notion in mind
I decided to be a different person for a day with the main goal of doing
whatever I wanted without asking permission (i.e., making decisions based on my
own happiness) as well as being decisive. I generally tend to be overly conscious
about gaining others approval before I complete any task. To this point, I have
even had many friends tell me to STOP asking for permission for everything,
it’s unnecessary and they ask me to not always state ‘I don’t care’; however,
in my mind asking permission is a behavior that I see as being polite – I
rather see others happy, especially if it deals with something that isn’t
particular important to me or is not part of my self-schema (Markus, 1977). With all these ideas or notions taken into account, I thus
chose to be more decisive and to not ask for permission in my task of becoming
or acting like a different person for a day.
I went throughout my day completing
or doing anything I wanted without asking the permission of others. My day of
being a different person started when I first woke up (i.e., with breakfast). I
heard my roommate in the kitchen so I got out of bed and opened my door, went
to the stove and just had some of the eggs she had been making (without
permission). To this ‘sharing’ of breakfast I was met with a look of shock and
misunderstanding by my roommate followed by an approving nonverbal behavior, a head nod, at first made with
hesitation (Darwin, 1872). I subsequently went through my day doing things
without asking for permission. I took food off of my friends plate at lunch
because I wanted to taste it – after choosing where we were going to eat
(without debate), I took a soda out of my friends frig because I was thirsty, I
changed they way I interacted/texted with my friends, acting in a more decisive
manner (I didn’t leave things open to interpretation, I made a decision and it
was what I wanted without permission or debate). I even went as far as to just walk
inside a friend of a friend’s apartment (whom I had never met) to use the
restroom – without permission- while we were all standing outside talking
before going to dinner. Nobody seemed phased at the specific act; they were
more surprised that I didn’t ask for permission like I normally do. The next
day when I asked if they thought it was weird that I didn’t ask permission, my
friends just responded with, “yes, because it’s you, but you had to go to the
bathroom.”
Doing this all day was difficult to
say the least. I have learned in class that I am a people pleaser. I rather see
others happy instead of myself, because I don’t like to be the center of
attention for fear of disappointing others. I rather be a bystander and go
along with my friends instead of leading them. Changing this part of myself
even for 24 hours was very difficult, I had to keep reminding myself that I
needed to stay strong and follow through with being decisive and non-appeasing
for a day.
The reactions I got were very similar to that of my roommate
with respect to breakfast. My actions were met with shock initially, followed
by smiles and numerous questions asking about what had changed that caused me
to become firmer in the convictions of my actions. I had to just tell them that
I was having a super confident day – for fear of spilling the secret that it
was ALL a social experiment. When I saw the opportunity to do something without
permission or make a decision I was initially scared. I had a knot in my
stomach and felt like the social
spotlight was on full blast (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 2000). Doing my best to
put my fear behind me, I completed the task while still shaking from nerves. Upon
completion of my ‘deviant’ behavior (deviant for me) I felt at ease again – my
nerves had subsided. However, as the day progressed the anxiety and fear seemed
to fade away, and it became easier to complete the task at hand. Part of this
was due to, I think, the facial
feedback hypothesis, which states that changes in facial expression
can, additionally, lead to changes in emotion (Laird, 1974). I went through the
day telling myself to smile and hold positive facial expressions while changing
my behavior which in turn helped change my nervous emotions I initially held
toward not asking for permission and being decisive.
From this experience, I learned a
lot about myself. I learned that I have a public
self-consciousness (Buss, 1980; Fenigstein, Scheier & Buss 1975). I
tend to think of myself in terms of how others perceive me and as such, I want
them to perceive me as somebody who not only has shared interests, but who also
is willing to sacrifice their own happiness in order to make them and others
happy. Through this process I have learned the true motives for my behavior. I
used to try to conform to
others because I thought it was what made them happy (Milgram, 1963). Contrary
to this initial thought, I found that my friends would rather I stand-up for
myself and show others that I care and can be decisive rather than just behave
in ways that are consistent with everyone else. I only disliked this change in
my behavior because it was inconsistent with my normal self (i.e., it make me
uncomfortable at first). However, after receiving positive feedback, following
the initial surprise reaction of my friends I realized that this change in
behavior might not be so bad after all.
I would consider making long-term changes to this behavior or trait. I
don’t think it will be an immediate change, but a gradual change is something
that I would very much embrace and strive toward.
What I learned about my self-presentation, in line with
its definition, is that I do like and want others to like me (Schlenker,
2003). However, I originally
thought that others (i.e., my friends and those I am close with) would rather
me conform to them rather
that I stand up for myself, be decisive, and not have to ask for permission for
everything I do (Milgram, 1963). Through being a different person for a day, I
learned that rather than being an ‘indecisive pushover’, for a lack of better
words, others would rather I do things for myself and not be so worried about
what they and others think. I believe this attribute within myself is something
that has been relatively stable up until this point – because I hope to change
it for the future. I think this notion, in turn, says a lot about my self-concept (Markus, 1977). Markus
(1977) asserted that our self-concept
is basically the notion that we form beliefs about our attributes through past
experiences, memories, and the interactions we have with others. Specifically,
for me, I think having grown up with two VERY outgoing, social, stubborn, and
overbearing siblings I learned that it was easiest and best to go with what
others want rather than making it more difficult by brining up my own wants –
especially when the matter was not very important to me. Moreover, I think that
I have been instilled with manners and respect towards others from my family
growing up to the point it still has a hold on my behavior as an adult, thus
playing an important part in forming my self-concept
(Markus, 1977). Being a different person for a day has changed the way I look
at myself for the better. I hope to change and be more like this ‘different’
person I portrayed for those 24 hours.
(n=1,406)
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness
and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman.
Darwin,
C. The expression of the emotions in man
and animals. London: John Murray.
Fenigstein,
A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private
self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.
Gilovich,
T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social
judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions
and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.
Laird,
J.D. (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of expressive behavior on
the quality of emotional appearance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 475-486.
Markus,
H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Milgram,
S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Schlenker,
B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M.R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp.492-518).
New York: Guilford.
Snyder,
M. (1987). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Today I took the Implicit Association
Test, or the IAT. For those of you who are not familiar with this test, it is
your lucky day – because I will explain it to you in terms even your
grandmother or older relative can understand! Greenwald and Banaji (1995) are
credited with developing the Implicit
Association Test. The IAT basically has to do with the notion that
memories or ideas that are unconscious to us (i.e., not readily
excisable/available to our conscious) may have a profound effect on our
actions, attitudes, behaviors or even associations (Greenwald & Banaji,
1995). The IAT is a computer-based measure that requires participants to
rapidly categorize words or pictures into one of two concepts, such that easier
pairings (i.e., faster responses) are seen as being more strongly associated in
memory (or the unconscious) than more difficult parings (i.e., slower
responses). Additionally, due to the notion that the IAT requires participants
to make many rapid judgments, it follows that IAT scores may also reflect attitudes,
which people may be unwilling to reveal publicly (Greenwald, McGhee &
Schwartz, 1998). This all boils down to the simple idea that the IAT is a
computer-based test that assesses the extent to which the unconscious has an
effect on rapid associations individuals make.
I took both the Gender-Science IAT and the Gender-Career IAT. I got
different results for each test. For the gender-science test, my data suggested
a slight association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared
to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts. My results for this specific
test did not surprise me too much because I knew there was a bias within the
sciences and liberal arts with respect to gender (one that I am exposed to
within society on a daily basis). However, because I go to Southwestern and see
many individuals (both Male and Female) within both domains, it makes sense to
me that I only hold a slight bias. In contrast, my results for the
Gender-Career IAT showed that I hold a strong association of Male with Career
and Female with Family compared to Female with Career and Male with Family. This
surprised me because growing up I always had a nanny or babysitter because my
parents both worked all day. Growing up with both parents working, I thought,
might contribute to a weaker association for the gender-career test, however I
guess the strong association within society or some other factor led me to hold
different associations for the Gender-Career IAT.
I think the IAT shows individuals
“true” attitudes. That is, the test shows the attitudes that individuals
subconsciously hold as a result of societal and other environmental influences.
For example, I thought I would hold weaker gender-career association, because I
grew up with both parents working. However, having many friends whose mothers
did not work could have played a major factor in developing this unconscious association.
Upon completion of this test, I did start to think about stereotypes and
prejudice differently than I had before. I previously thought that if you were
aware of how reality can diverge from stereotypical associations then this idea
would appear when taking the IAT. Contrary to my expectations, it did not. Even
as somebody who is aware that working and family can be equally associated with
male or female, subconsciously this was not evident on the IAT test – society
may have a bigger socializing factor than I originally thought.
glozell1 (2008, June, 8). My Push up Bra will help me keep my man. Retrieved on March 5, 2013 from, http://youtu.be/gtkU2ch0sRI. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L.
(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit
Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G.,
& Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association
Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.
