Accidental Racism

Throughout the course of history, race has become a focal point in political and social discussions. In today’s world, especially in the United States, an almost absurd obsession with being “politically correct” in all race-related matters has developed. However, the desire to be politically correct and remain entirely unbiased has ironically resulted in being less partial towards non-ethnic groups.
According to Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, intention is typically the most accurate predictor of behavior. Behavioral beliefs (including an assessment of the outcome of a given situation), normative beliefs (social influences and how one expects his or her identifying group to react), and perceived control beliefs (success of similar maneuvers in the past) all influence one’s intentions. As I mentioned in my first and second blog entries, social influence on an individual’s beliefs is monumental and almost unrivaled—that is, the concerns of a given group at a given time are often transferred to the individual without him or her ever noticing.
With the recent election of the first African-American President of the United States, race has become a point of contention in American society. Society has rightfully demanded racial equality and an end to discrimination, and as such, these issues have become priorities for the individual as well. Although institutions of the past such as slavery are extremely unfortunate and regrettable, we as a society have made an effort to progress. The Civil Rights movement achieved legal equality for African-Americans, but racism is still prevalent in today’s society. The predicament, however, is that ridding society of racism against blacks should not mean instilling racism for whites.
Because society so greatly influences the individual’s behavior and because each member of the group tends to seek approval of the group, the desire to appear impartial often makes one biased. For instance, a recent study that entailed selecting hypothetical candidates for college acceptance revealed that attempting to appear “colorblind” influenced the participants’ selections significantly. Whites especially were less likely to acknowledge race as a factor in their selection of the candidates and were actually more likely to accept more diverse candidates with less “specific qualifications.” This suggests that, because society is so obsessed with remaining colorblind, preference is sometimes subconsciously given to the more ethnic candidates, especially if a Caucasian is making the decision. Because being racist is appropriately taboo, whites are often afraid of appearing racist and make decisions accordingly (Norton, Vandello, Biga, Darley).
Because society is so focused on adhering to remaining “colorblind,” the individual often evaluates potential employees, college applicants, etc. based on race without actually acknowledging it. As such, preference is often given to the more diverse candidate, negating the initial attempt to remain unbiased.

Sources:
Norton, Michael, et al. "Colorblind and diversity: conflicting goals in decisions influenced by race." Social Cognition 26.1 (2008): 102-111. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 3 Dec. 2008 .

http://www.12manage.com/methods_ajzen_theory_planned_behaviour.html

Drawing the Line

Throughout the course of history, a myriad of controversial events have occurred (i.e. the genocides in Rwanda and Germany, the “ethnic cleansing” of the Serbs, etc.), and consequentially, many nations have had to face possible intervention on their behalves. The motives for supplying aid to a given nation are complex, context-dependent, and become even more involved when the nation seeking aid is plagued by numerous violations of human rights. At some point, countries and individuals alike must decide where and when they “draw the line” on going to war. In doing so, we must actively define what injustices necessitate intervention and which do not, a process which is heavily influenced by the individual’s ideals and his or her respective society’s ideals.

Because social beliefs largely influence those of the individual, society’s standards play a significant role in defining where an individual draws the line on going to war. Firstly, the individual’s ideals and specific beliefs obviously influence where he or she chooses (or would choose) to intervene on behalf of another. If one feels that an action violates what he or she holds to be right and fair, the individual can then decide whether or not intervention should be considered. However, society’s beliefs and the tenets our social groups hold to be true also influence our motives, producing greater effects than are typically imagined. A recent energy conservation study in California, often considered one of the most liberal and environmentally-conscious states in America, revealed that “descriptive normative beliefs”—that those that are held by a majority of those around us—better predicted actions than any other factor (Nolan p. 913). In actuality, social influence elicited the largest changes in behavior overall, even more so than information that emphasized the benefits of active conservation. However, those surveyed were also more likely to say that their cultural and social beliefs had the least impact on their decision. As such, it is relatively easy for society’s concerns to then develop into the individual’s concerns, often without detection. We are bombarded by our societal beliefs on a daily basis. When we view an outside conflict or issue, we often subscribe to the ideals our social groups (Americans, Southerners, Floridians, UNF students, etc.) have deemed as “appropriate.”

Society’s influence reaches even farther than this, however, in that the issues society characterizes as important are the ones that we allow ourselves to address on a regular basis. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam created an MIP-G (Motivated Information Processing in Groups) model that suggests that social concerns are the driving force behind what type of information individuals “attend to, encode, and retrieve” (De Drue p. 22) whereas the theory of knowledge shapes the extent to which an individual seeks new information to process. It makes logical sense that when society as a whole becomes interested, we as individuals become interested; if society illustrates a legitimate interest, media attention and coverage of the issue increases. The issue often moves to the forefront of the individual’s interests simply because of the increased exposure to the issue at hand. For instance, the recent crazes over the rising price of gas and global warming have illustrated the changes in individuals (i.e. less driving, more carpooling/recycling, drinking tap water instead of bottled water) that can occur as a result of social motivation. Essentially, because society mandates the “important” issues of the time, we are exposed to these issues more and become more concerned with them as a result. The extensive effects of society’s beliefs on an individual’s suggest that the group with which one associates has a huge impact on what situations he or she would actively oppose.

Because society’s ideals and the individual’s ideals are so intertwined, social groups have a huge impact on where one draws the line on going to war; the beliefs our society holds often lapse into our own.

Works Cited

Nolan, Jessica M, et al. "Normative social influence is undertected." Personality and Social Psychilogy Bulletin 34.7 (2008): 913-923. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 20 Oct. 2008.

De Drue, Carsten K.W., Bernard A Nijstad, and Daan Van Knippenberg. "Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making." Personality and Social Psychology Review 12.1 (2008): 22-49. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 20 Oct. 2008.

Conformity's Influence on Nationalism

Nationalism is a major social and political force that has heavily influenced many conflicts throughout the course of history. Pride in Germany in the 1940’s led to a (temporarily successful) coup of most of continental Europe, devotion to Serbia and its hatred of Austria caused the precipitating event of the “Great War,” and American patriotism led our country to invade Iraq. Nationalistic ideas have proven to be very efficient in uniting a given group of people for a specific cause, a feat that is, however, only accomplished through initial conformity of the group. The need to belong, the need for affirmation, and the existence of an outside group influence both nationalism and conformity and illustrate how nationalism promotes individuals to conform.

Firstly, nationalism is a social movement that emphasizes pride for one’s country and requires a recognition of and respect for the needs of the nation. It results in unifying a group behind a specific cause (especially a conflict or other matter of controversy), and is even considered to be the "decisive basis of political community" (Goodman 2). Conformity, however, deals with an individual’s decision to abandon his or her ideas in favor of the ideas of the group. It is the relationship between the two that allows nationalism to flourish, as it depends on conformity to be the mechanism of unification.

Two basic human needs, as defined by Susan Fisk—the need to be right and the need for approval—illustrate nationalism’s promotion of conformity as a tool to unite the group behind a given cause (Psychology of War lecture). The need to belong influences both nationalism and conformity in that the decisions we make (when an outside spectator exists) are based on the desire to “fit in.” As humans, we are validated by the fact that we have approval from others and a specific group with which we can identify. With conformity, the need to belong is a “powerful, fundamental and extremely pervasive motivation,” as is the need for approval (Baumeister and Leary 497). Both innate needs impact us significantly, often causing us to outwardly reject our beliefs and accept ones we would normally oppose. For instance, in an experiment conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950’s, the mechanism of conformity was explored in the classroom setting. Three lines were drawn on a piece of paper, and the students were asked to identify which line was the shortest. Surprisingly, Asch found that 32% of students would knowingly provide the wrong answer so long as the other “students,” (who were actually working with Asch) did the same. Such findings suggest much about the powerful nature of conformity and its potential to accomplish real goals; even in the classroom setting when the participants knew the answer, the desire to belong actually surpassed the need to be right, convincing about 1/3 of the participants to betray their instincts (Hayes).

These same desires influence nationalism in a similar way, though more intensively, since more pressure is put on the individual to accept a certain point of view. In the Asch experiment, the pressure to conform came from the other students in the room. (We are all familiar with the classroom setting and the pressure created simply by the presence of our peers.) However, with nationalism, pressure emanates from a given political candidate, political authority, general, etc. Someone who has much more authority than the typical American pressures the general public into accepting a new point of view. For example, Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment that pitted the participants against other human beings (collaborating with Milgram). Sixty-five percent of participants agreed to administer a potentially dangerous “shock” to a victim sequestered in a different room. These victims (actually actors who received no shocks) pleaded with the participants, screamed loudly and seemingly in pain, but many of the participants continued to administer the “electrical shocks,” citing that a person of authority had instructed them to do so (Blass 70).

If a classroom setting can cause people to conform by deliberately saying an answer they knew was wrong, authority pressure can incite much more drastic results. With propaganda and political savvy, people in authority positions can induce conformity to nationalistic ideals, either through means of intimidation (as in the use of the secret police in the USSR and Nazi Germany), manipulation (i.e. nationalistic war posters that “sell” the cause as if it were a product), or even through the human needs described above. By applying some type of pressure, nationalism mimics conformity, promoting its tendency to unite a divided people.

Conformity and nationalism are closely related in that both unite individuals for a given topic, stem from the basic human needs of needing to belong and needing to be right, and are achieved when some type of pressure is exerted on the individual. Nationalism relies on conformity because without it (and the resulting unified front), nationalism is largely ineffective. Conformity exists on a large scale when nationalism takes root in a cause or idea that eventually becomes representative of the majority opinion.

For instance, consider one of the most blatant displays of nationalism and conformity in all of human history--the rise of power of the Nazi party in post-World War I Germany. Because of the harsh demands and restrictions (including occupation of the Ruhr valley, strict limitations on the size and supplies of the German army, territorial disputes, etc.) imposed upon the Germans by the Treaty of Versailles, widespread discontent swept the nation, and the Jews and the Allied Powers became the scapegoats. This dissatisfaction, combined with the nationalistic attitude that it was time for Germany's "place in the sun," allowed Hitler to convince an entire nation that the creation of the Third Reich was an attainable, admirable goal. Nationalism provided the initial interest in restoring Germany to its former glory and pressure from Hitler (applied through propaganda, repetition, and intimidation at the hands of the SS) provided the stimulus to conform. The result was a very united front that, had Hitler not invaded Russia, may have been much more successful at conquering Europe than it already was; the unity that existed had already allowed Germany to progress from a crippled nation to the premiere European country in a matter of twenty years. In any case, the rise of the Nazis in Germany illustrates the linked nature of nationalism and conformity and demonstrates their potential as unifying forces.

Works Cited:

Baumeister, Roy F, and Mark R Leary. "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation." Psychological Bulletin 117.3 (1995): 497. PsycINFO Database. ProQuest. UNF Library Jacksonville, FL. 17 Oct. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/login.

Blass, Thomas. "The Man Who Shocked the World." Psychology Today (Mar.-Apr. 2002): 68-73. 17 Oct. 2008 http://www.stanleymilgram.com/pdf/pschology_today.pdf.

Goodman, James. "Nationalism and Globalism: Social Movement Responses." The International Scope Review 4.8 (2002): 1-17. University of Technology of Sydney. 17 Oct. 2008 http://www.grain.org/g/nationalism%20and%20globalism.pdf.

Hayes, Brian J. "Solomon Asch Experiment: A Study of Conformity." Age-of-the-Sage. May 2002. 17 Oct. 2008 .