Local Issues #3 - Adoption of children from war-ridden areas of Africa

Ethiopian children “An Age to begin anew” 4/23/08 The Boston Globe

Recently there was an article in the Boston Globe regarding the, “adoption of children from war-ridden areas of Africa.”  For the children discussed, adoption by American families is a priceless opportunity to escape the dangers of war and conflict in their homeland.  Therefore, in many ways, the new life which accompanies the adoption is, for these children, a blessing.  What the article identified was, however, the difficulties that these children experience adapting to American culture.  In this adaptation the children must adjust their self-concept as their life and surrounding culture changes.  Psychological theorists have discussed at length how humans develop their self-concept, and one of the sources consistently discussed is through socialization.  The theories assert that we garner self-knowledge through our culture, family, attitudes, values, and political and religious affiliation.  Essentially, we define ourselves, in large part, by our culture.  This is why the children adopted from African countries are experiencing difficulties with their self-concept – because they are no longer within the culture that literally, defines who they are.  Their self-concept is changing as they are socialized into a new culture.  In this case, an understanding of self-concept and how it is affected by socialization is relevant to appreciating the situation of these adopted children.

American Political Issues #3 - “Core supporters stuck with their candidates” 4/23/08

With the progress of the primary election, much of the media – in print, electronic, radio, and television broadcasts – is devoted solely and consistently to the election.  With the coming and passing of each subsequent primary election day, the media focuses on predictions and surveys to determine the winner.  Those who still claim to be undecided come voting day are questioned to no end, because those who have long ago committed to or at least recently decided upon a particular candidate, such rash indecision is difficult to understand. 

It is the other group, those early and continued supporters of various candidates whom they rely on to join together to garner further support on the grassroots level in their communities across the country.  Intuition may lead us to believe that for those who become more involved with the campaigns of their candidate, individuals might be more exposed to competing arguments, and their loyalty may waver.  Social psychological studies, however, disprove our intuition with a concept called group polarization.  Research says that the longer we are exposed to, and involved with other individuals who hold more extreme opinions of the same side as our own, the more steadfast we hold our own convictions.  Group polarization is when a group discussion encourages people to go with the decision they were predisposed to.  In fact, their opinions oftentimes become more extreme.  So we often think that debating amongst the candidates and their supporters is effective at revealing all sides of the arguments, such that some may reconsider their positions.  Nevertheless, this is proven to be a tired and wasted effort because it, more often, achieves the opposite affect.  This principle, or reality, whatever you want to call it, is important because it sheds light on how people who are working on presidential, and even high school elections, can better target and allocate their efforts.

Local Issues #2 - Group Projects At Boston College

As the end of the semester comes to a close, the libraries suddenly become more populated, with students rushing to finish those long-term and last-minute assignments.  Clearly, finishing 15+ page papers are difficult enough when operating solo.  Thus, the difficulty of completing the dreaded group projects is exacerbated.  The understanding is that group projects are generally beneficial to students – but the question remains that if students groan and resent these projects so, are they really generating the intended effect?  Are they really beneficial to student learning?  Do they result in better products?  Do they involve a better learning process?  Do they really represent adult working life?  Despite the professors’ good intentions, all research points to worse results, inhibited processes, and diffused responsibility.

            Conclusively, the research says that for groups’ performance to equal the sum of its parts, the group must be aware of the pitfalls of group work – something that most groups are not aware of.  Evidence shows that when a group brainstorms independently, many more and better ideas result.  When brainstorming occurs in a group a combination of production blocking, free riding, evaluation apprehension, and performance matching reduce the effectiveness.  Production blocking is when people have to wait for others to finish speaking to share their idea, and in that time, they forget their new idea.  Free riding is the tendency of some members of a group to feel less pressure to contribute when others are.  I think evaluation apprehension is especially relevant to group projects in undergraduate courses – the hesitance to share one’s ideas out of fear of being judged by peers.  And the last block, performance matching, is when members work only as hard as the other members of their group.  Furthermore, research has shown that unless each member is evaluated independently and their personal contributions are obvious, social loafing is likely to occur.  This means that some students will and usually do work less hard, leaving the remaining group members to complete the work.

            So, the evidence shows that not only is the product of lower quality, but unless students are being evaluated independently, some are likely to not put in much effort.  Therefore, regardless of professors’ high hopes, students are likely to disappoint them and ultimately, produce an inferior project, which means that they learn less in the process.  All of this research is relevant because it sheds light on how to improve group projects.  The research also lends itself to advising professors how to design an efficient and effective group project such that all students are held accountable and in the end gain more from the experience.

Worldwide Issues #3 - Why not label a conflict, genocide?

            This really is a political question with human lives at stake.  Countries like the US, and those involved with the UN are caught up in the bureaucratic debates so much that they metaphorically play Risk with disadvantaged countries.  Post-Holocaust, post-Rwandan genocide, and predictably, post-Darfur, we will be asking ourselves why we, as a country and as members of the human race, did not take action to stop what we knew to be systemic extinction of a demographic of people.  Why do we wait to call a spade a spade and genocide genocide?  In this ‘post’ period, we are wrought with cognitive dissonance because our actions do not match our self-image.  We see ourselves as moral, kind people, but when our nations do not stop the killing of others, our self-image and actions are in conflict.  Seemingly, this conflict and cognitive dissonance would occur during the genocide; however, history says that it does not occur in large enough magnitude since it does not impact the course plan of nations.  Why?  Why do we wait so long to recognize it for what it so clearly is?  Why do we wait until it has ended to feel this conflict and guilt which encourage us to say, “Never again.”? 

            The best excuse, I mean rational, that I have found is self-preservation.  The facts are that it is written into the laws of most countries and the laws of the United Nations, that they must take certain steps in the occurrence of genocide.  These steps presumably cost countries money, manpower, and resources and often implicitly involve a great deal of risk.  Thus, it is in their bodies’ best interest to avoid costly endeavors, which is impossible so long as a conflict is labeled genocide.  Therefore, in an effort to protect the self, countries and even the United Nations wait, until the proof in irrefutable to label with genocide.  

            Furthermore, principles of natural selection and kinship selection as a rational for why people help others shed light onto this issue.  Kinship selection is the body of the Selfish Gene View of helping.  It says that survival of the fittest principle dictates the likelihood of which we will help based on relatedness.  Kinship selection emphasizes that we are most likely to share our resources and place ourselves at risk for the benefit of those most biologically close to us.  In this way, nations oceans away and populations our ancestors never procreated with are not of top priority because we are, for the most part, biologically disconnected.  Luckily, cognitive dissonance and our egotistical biases and images of ourselves – which set high standards for our behavior do, eventually, override our selective helping.  In this way, genocides are recognized, rectified, and we apologize. 

Local Issue #1 - Mother, teen son indicted in killing

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/04/01/mother_teen_son_indicted_in_killing/

It is apparent in the media today what the American public wants to read.  Newspapers and other forms of media cover, publish, and present what sells.  Arguably, there is reason to be concerned since Hollywood love stories have become a staple of the evening news, following the world news and weather.  More so, I take issue with the rarity that we ever see anything positive in the news.  If it isn’t another incidence of violence, a Hollywood break-up, or another terrorist suicide bombing, it doesn’t seem worth the space.  I am not trying to say that we should not be informed of the tragedies which are realities of our world situation.  However, I do think it would do everyone good to recognize the positive things that occur in our world.  From the new after school program for inner city kids, to aid delivered to a needy area – I am not advocating for a rosy view of the world, only a more complete one. 

            The concept of “if it bleeds, it leads,” is almost exclusively relevant to our media culture today.  Clearly, this is a principle in reference to our interest in conflict, violence, and negative things.  Our front pages have to be laced with blood or marriages for the papers and news stations to stay in business.  The article found at the link is an example of this trend.  Yes, an accidental homicide is obviously a tragedy; however, I do believe it is unfair to only ever see articles about DSS’s failings.  We only hear when they mess up, not when they successfully place hundreds of children, or remove a child from a dangerous situation.  However, there rarely is space in the newspaper for a triumph story.  This psychological principle helps us understand our media and why they make the choices they do – which is important for a reader to be objective and read the news in context.        

Worldwide Issues #2 - Darfur

Although I am aware that the current conflict in Darfur is intensely complex and a product of hundreds of years of history, I am confident that some aspects of what is going on there can be better understood with the use of social psychology.  I would like to argue that the conflict and group tensions are exacerbated by competition for resources.  It is now a fact in social psychology that when an individual feels threatened, the individual is more likely to rely on prejudices to interpret the world.  What this means for Darfur, and really any place where resources are scarce or there is any threat to human security, is that people who maybe did not like each other or who were skeptical about another group of people are going to have exaggerated feelings which often result in outright discrimination and prejudice.  Clearly this is a huge issue because the conflict already exists, and this reality becomes a vicious cycle preventing any easy solution. 

Furthermore, the realistic group conflict theory can be applied here.  This theory says that under certain circumstances, hostility is caused by direct competition for limited resources.  It argues that during times of economic difficulty, prejudices should increase.  In this case prejudice is defined as an unjustifiable negative feeling or emotional response toward a group and its individual members.  The theory says that conflict should be highest among groups that have the most to lose from the other groups’ advancement.  Such is the case in Darfur; the power of the two groups is inversely proportional.  When one gains power, because it was oppressed by the other group, they retaliate by taking power away from the other group.  In this way, the groups have everything to lose from the advancement of the other and thus, have an extremely high incidence of conflict.

All of this is important and helpful when the international community is intervening and attempting to solve some of the deep-rooted problems in Darfur.  It is important to understand, psychologically, how prejudices become so strong, and why they are there in the first place.  The realistic group conflict theory is helpful in beginning to unravel Darfur’s complex history.  Without understanding where the realities of today come from, we have no hope of solving them.

"Wave of violence threatens Darfur camps"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7125209.stm

American Political Issues #2 Iraq war veterans’ activism against the war

"Why are the people who just fought in the war coming back to protest it?"  "How hypocritical!" These are some common reactions to Iraq war veterans lead war protests.  The way I see it, when Iraq war veterans protest against the very war they fought in, is a clear case of cognitive dissonance.  Presumably there is not one reason that any soldier joins the army.  Probably, some of them joined years before the Iraq war conflict, maybe even well before the attacks on 9/11.  Possibly, some of the soldiers were committed to serve, whether they agreed with the offensive movements of the United States or not.  Most likely, there are many individuals who joined the service post-9/11, fully supported the actions of the United States, and were willing to fulfill their service overseas. 

For the purposes of discussing the cognitive dissonance experienced by the Iraq War veterans, I am going to assume that many of the soldiers went overseas supporting the war.  Then why are these war veterans now protesting a war that they supported and played a serious role in?  I am arguing that they arrived overseas, and saw the destruction and atrocities occurring.  Their individual compliance and participation in what they probably perceived as immoral acts undoubtedly conflicted with their self-images as moral people.  Thus, in order to resolve this conflict, once these soldiers return from their term of service, they are able to admit their disagreement with the war.  In order to resolve the conflict of their past actions and their philosophical disagreement with their actions, the soldiers protest.  Their present activism resolves their conflict and thus, resolves their cognitive dissonance.  

This is important to both understanding a) the why these soldiers are protesting and b) the reality of the war itself.  The fact that people who have participated first hand are overcoming their impulses, and experiencing cognitive dissonance about their actions suggests that it was a fairly negative experience, which should, ultimately lead us all to question the actions of our nation.