Prejudice.
Many forms, one similarity.
Defined in the textbook as, 'a negative attitude towards members of a group, which is often very strongly held'.
General view of tall people = smart. Really meh?
Okay lah.. I'm 185cm tall. See, simply by stating our height we tend to use the term 'tall'.
And we ask stuff like... "How tall are you?".
Yes its terrible, and as we have all learnt throughout our lives (especially in PY2103) that....................... there are OUTLIERS.
So how? For people who are vertically challenged BUT very smart. Step into the interview room and if you're fast enough you might probably be able to catch the flinch on the interviewer's face.
I just mentioned this the other day during tutorial... but lemme add some stuff.
Common belief: TALL = SMART
Fact #1: SMART = MORE BRAIN MATTER
Fact #2: MORE BRAIN MATTER = BIG BRAIN = HEAVY HEAD
Dissonance: HEAVY HEAD = TALL
How is this possible...?
Shorter people should be smart, and the shorter one is the smarter he/she gets!
Also... many many things in this world are prejudiced against TALL people despite the liking for them, a couple are:
-Cars are usually designed for seating 1 driver and 4 passengers... ya RIGHT.
I sit down inside only kana squeeze like duno what.
-Beds... oh so shiok to sleep on right... lets see.. super single.. apparently supposed to be longer... ya RIGHT. I sleep with my feet off the bed.
OHHHHHH. Other prejudiced stuff?:
People with big thumbs and fingers and hands... don't you simply love fumbling on your 'miniature' handphone.. often taking more time than preferred to send a text message?
Horizontally challenged people... see something in a store you like but don't have your size?
People with feet size on the extreme ends of the scale... always no size?
Ya.. many many many examples of prejudice all pointing in one direction.
It seems that as long as you are an OUTLIER, be it culturally or physically, you would be prejudiced in some manner.
Ta ta.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Lelong Lelong!!~ (Compliance: Pg 319 of text)
Foot-in-the-door:
Lelong Lelong!!! Come come see my apples hor! Cheep Cheep... four foh one dollah!
"Wah...", you think, "usually people sell 3 for $1, but today this guy sell 4 for $1. Must buy must buy!! Uncle ah... can give me 4 apples thank you!".
So the uncle grabs a plastic bag but suddenly stops, looks up, and grins :D
"If you buy 10 apples and an additional 4 oranges I charge you $4 for all!!".
"Alamak... aiya... *long pause* okay la I take the lot!".
There exists 2 processes to explain why the foot-in-the-door technique works.
The self-perception process theory approaches the foot-in-the-door technique with an initial small request. This request may cause the person to have a self perception process where they think of the situation as in the above example "good deal".
Thus, the second request made by the stall owner to purchase 10 apples and 4 oranges was considered to be in compliance with the first and the person would still be thinking, "after all, it is still a good deal".
As for the consistency process theory, as its name suggests, focuses on the consistency from request to request. In our example, not complying in the second request would appear inconsistent in which the person may want to simply comply with the request.
Door-in-the-face:
The door-in-the-face technique for the above example would be something like this-
First request, 10 apples for $3. This initial request is one that is sure to be turned down.
Second request, 4 apples for $1. It is expected that the second request seem much more likely to be agreed upon.
The 'norm of reciprocity' states that we should return any favours we have received.
Receiving a birthday gift would cause a person to feel guilty and to return the giver an appropriate birthday gift in kind.
Thus the second request would be seen as a favour such as, "Please could you at least buy 4 at $1. It is really very cheap. Please?"
Scarcity:
As its name implies, the lesser of the item being sold, the more attractive it would be seen by others.
If there were a big group of potential customers around a fruit stall, the vendor would manipulate the situation by advertising the limited supply and really cheap price of the fruits for sale.
Magic.
Lelong Lelong!!! Come come see my apples hor! Cheep Cheep... four foh one dollah!
"Wah...", you think, "usually people sell 3 for $1, but today this guy sell 4 for $1. Must buy must buy!! Uncle ah... can give me 4 apples thank you!".
So the uncle grabs a plastic bag but suddenly stops, looks up, and grins :D
"If you buy 10 apples and an additional 4 oranges I charge you $4 for all!!".
"Alamak... aiya... *long pause* okay la I take the lot!".
There exists 2 processes to explain why the foot-in-the-door technique works.
The self-perception process theory approaches the foot-in-the-door technique with an initial small request. This request may cause the person to have a self perception process where they think of the situation as in the above example "good deal".
Thus, the second request made by the stall owner to purchase 10 apples and 4 oranges was considered to be in compliance with the first and the person would still be thinking, "after all, it is still a good deal".
As for the consistency process theory, as its name suggests, focuses on the consistency from request to request. In our example, not complying in the second request would appear inconsistent in which the person may want to simply comply with the request.
Door-in-the-face:
The door-in-the-face technique for the above example would be something like this-
First request, 10 apples for $3. This initial request is one that is sure to be turned down.
Second request, 4 apples for $1. It is expected that the second request seem much more likely to be agreed upon.
The 'norm of reciprocity' states that we should return any favours we have received.
Receiving a birthday gift would cause a person to feel guilty and to return the giver an appropriate birthday gift in kind.
Thus the second request would be seen as a favour such as, "Please could you at least buy 4 at $1. It is really very cheap. Please?"
Scarcity:
As its name implies, the lesser of the item being sold, the more attractive it would be seen by others.
If there were a big group of potential customers around a fruit stall, the vendor would manipulate the situation by advertising the limited supply and really cheap price of the fruits for sale.
Magic.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
'I am a smoker'.
'Smoking causes cancer'.
Dissonant cognitions are beliefs we have which are incongruent with each other. 'I am a smoker' is not rational with 'smoking causes cancer'.
Leon Festinger proposed Cognitive Dissonance Theory stating that when we are aware of consonant cognitions, we feel good. When we happen to encounter dissonant cognitions, we feel bad and develop unpleasant emotions which in turn drives us to do something to change our state.
Something to change our state? What is it exactly you might ask. It is to reduce the dissonance either by directly changing our cognitions, or adding more consonant cognitions.
Changing our cognitions:
So in order to make things right, I could simply stop smoking which leads to 'I do not smoke', and 'smoking causes cancer'. Now both cognitions are consonant.
Or perhaps everytime I look at the 'horrible' images on the cigarette boxes, I compare all the smokers I know and tell myself that its highly unlikely to happen to me.
I would then use the cognition 'Smoking will not cause me to have ugly teeth and a rotten mouth', to override 'smoking causes cancer'. This would be consonant with 'I am a smoker'.
Adding more consonant cognitions:
So now my cognitions are -
'Smoking will not cause me to have ugly teeth and a rotten mouth', and
'I am a smoker'.
Maybe I still do not feel comfortable with these two cognitions as dissonance arise.
I would then add the cognition, 'The mouth images on the cigarette boxes belong to people who do not brush their teeth'.
*Ahh* Now I feel better. Smoking seems much more rational now!
LASTLY...
Festinger also proposed another method of reducing dissonance. It is to reduce the importance of one of the dissonant cognitions and increase the importance of one of the consonant cognitions.
>> So I am a smoker, and smoking causes cancer. Smoking also causes me to have an ugly mouth. Oh well, none the less I still love the pleasures of smoking so I might as well have a ball of a time while I'm still alive! <<
Here the two cognitions 'smoking causes cancer' and 'smoking causes me to have an ugly mouth' is reduced, whereas the importance of the cognition 'Smoking is pleasurable' is increased.
p.s.
I do not smoke.
'Smoking causes cancer'.
Dissonant cognitions are beliefs we have which are incongruent with each other. 'I am a smoker' is not rational with 'smoking causes cancer'.
Leon Festinger proposed Cognitive Dissonance Theory stating that when we are aware of consonant cognitions, we feel good. When we happen to encounter dissonant cognitions, we feel bad and develop unpleasant emotions which in turn drives us to do something to change our state.
Something to change our state? What is it exactly you might ask. It is to reduce the dissonance either by directly changing our cognitions, or adding more consonant cognitions.
Changing our cognitions:
So in order to make things right, I could simply stop smoking which leads to 'I do not smoke', and 'smoking causes cancer'. Now both cognitions are consonant.
Or perhaps everytime I look at the 'horrible' images on the cigarette boxes, I compare all the smokers I know and tell myself that its highly unlikely to happen to me.
I would then use the cognition 'Smoking will not cause me to have ugly teeth and a rotten mouth', to override 'smoking causes cancer'. This would be consonant with 'I am a smoker'.
Adding more consonant cognitions:
So now my cognitions are -
'Smoking will not cause me to have ugly teeth and a rotten mouth', and
'I am a smoker'.
Maybe I still do not feel comfortable with these two cognitions as dissonance arise.
I would then add the cognition, 'The mouth images on the cigarette boxes belong to people who do not brush their teeth'.
*Ahh* Now I feel better. Smoking seems much more rational now!
LASTLY...
Festinger also proposed another method of reducing dissonance. It is to reduce the importance of one of the dissonant cognitions and increase the importance of one of the consonant cognitions.
>> So I am a smoker, and smoking causes cancer. Smoking also causes me to have an ugly mouth. Oh well, none the less I still love the pleasures of smoking so I might as well have a ball of a time while I'm still alive! <<
Here the two cognitions 'smoking causes cancer' and 'smoking causes me to have an ugly mouth' is reduced, whereas the importance of the cognition 'Smoking is pleasurable' is increased.
p.s.
I do not smoke.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Counterfactual thoughts, Social Comparison
Just the other day I was looking for a multiplug so that i could hook up my laptop during class. Both sockets in that one power outlet were consumed and I began to think, "Why didn't I bring it today, I usually carry it with me everywhere I go" [Upward Counterfactual Thought: Reflecting on how a situation might have transpired better].
Have you ever encountered those times where you were walking on a grass patch looking straight ahead and your friend beside you suddenly screams, "Watch out for that dog &*#$ !!!".
*Phew*... thanks pal... then you step around the warm fresh pile of you know what. Just a few seconds later you both hear a yelp and spin around to find a very sexy lady frantically shaking off the poop from her shoes. "Wah heng ah !!! Could have been me!", you gleefully exclaim [Downward Counterfactual Thought: Reflecting on how a situation might have been worse]. Your friend, however approaches the lady and offers assistance and after the ordeal he returns with her number and you say, "Aiya!! I should have approached her first.. you very LuCkY ah!! [Upward Counterfactual Thought], and then, "Oh yah.. forgot I'm married hor... good thing my wife is so caring and loving [Downward Counterfactual Thought]".
Counterfactual thoughts are actually thoughts which focus on 'how a situation might have been otherwise', or 'how things might have been different'. As its name implies, it is a counter to a fact which currently exists.
Have you ever encountered those times where you were walking on a grass patch looking straight ahead and your friend beside you suddenly screams, "Watch out for that dog &*#$ !!!".
*Phew*... thanks pal... then you step around the warm fresh pile of you know what. Just a few seconds later you both hear a yelp and spin around to find a very sexy lady frantically shaking off the poop from her shoes. "Wah heng ah !!! Could have been me!", you gleefully exclaim [Downward Counterfactual Thought: Reflecting on how a situation might have been worse]. Your friend, however approaches the lady and offers assistance and after the ordeal he returns with her number and you say, "Aiya!! I should have approached her first.. you very LuCkY ah!! [Upward Counterfactual Thought], and then, "Oh yah.. forgot I'm married hor... good thing my wife is so caring and loving [Downward Counterfactual Thought]".
Counterfactual thoughts are actually thoughts which focus on 'how a situation might have been otherwise', or 'how things might have been different'. As its name implies, it is a counter to a fact which currently exists.
As you have noticed, upward counterfactual thinking is related to negative thinking whereas upward counterfactual thinking is related to positive thoughts. Also related to upward and downward social comparison. As the textbook would have it, Upward Counterfactual focuses on 'wanting to improve' whereas for Downward Counterfactual it is on 'wanting to feel better'.
Also it is visible that upward counterfactual thinking often arouses negative emotions, which could generate ideas about how to avoid negative outcomes in future whereas downward counterfactual thinking often arouses positive emotions, which could be cleverly used to improve our mood or heal our self-esteem.
All my definitions are straight from the text...
cheers.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Drivers and Handphones
Dont' you feel irritated when your driving in the second lane on the ECP and the car in front of you is travelling at 70? Oh well, nevermind that the is going a little slow... but when you overtake the car you can't help but notice the driver fiddling with a handphone?
Imagine all the kinds of schemas and heuristics being thrown into action then. " #*$@!! No wonder so slow... SMSing lah!" or... just simply "#$%&... #$@^... $#&$ !!!!!".
Perhaps you're in a good mood today and simply brush it off.
Just imagine this is your situation and mood. Firstly, if you have been driving for a while, you most likely have experienced a multiple of such situations, most of which the driver was actually talking on the phone or sending an SMS. From these earlier experiences, you form schemas, telling yourself that if a car is moving excessivly slow, it must be because the driver is on the phone.
Perhaps over time, you would also notice other drivers talking/arguing to their passenger and would simply generalize the cause to be solely distraction.
So everytime you encounter a really slow moving car (be it on the expressway or any road) you would be really irritated and your mind would be figuring out what the driver is doing, and when you spot him on the phone you go, "I KNEW IT! MUST BE ON THE PHONE!", when in fact before that, you were voicing out to yourself that he was probably talking to his passenger [Hindsight Bias: The inclination for a person to overestimate the predictability of known outcomes]. *Anyways, you would still go, "Whatever la! On the phone or talking to passenger all the same! Still talking!"*
Then you continue driving along the expressway... thoughts of your earlier incident still fuming in your head. This time, you're on the first lane and there is this other road hogger in front of you, "Basket.. another slow driver! Confirm using handphone!" [Availability Heuristic: The inclination to base a judgement on how easily relevant examples can be remembered].
Suddenly your handphone starts ringing and you frantically search your pockets with one hand and the other on the wheel. Upon finding the phone you notice the name of the caller to be your boss. *Alamak! #$^@... Kanchiong! I forgot to email the report!!!* Suddenly all thoughts about the previous road hoggers were erased from your working memory and you look down at your phone, desperately fumbling to press the uber small 'answer call' button on your little phone.
A car overtook on your left, with the driver staring at you in full view of your fingers working on the phone. The driver seems to be mumbling some gibberish (probably vulgarities) and speeds off.
-----> It seems such situations are ever present everywhere we go and in everything we do and with everyone we meet. Of course it is not always a bad situation that we find ourselves making errors in judging a person or situation.
Probably the easiest action is to simply 'bochap' huh?
Imagine all the kinds of schemas and heuristics being thrown into action then. " #*$@!! No wonder so slow... SMSing lah!" or... just simply "#$%&... #$@^... $#&$ !!!!!".
Perhaps you're in a good mood today and simply brush it off.
Just imagine this is your situation and mood. Firstly, if you have been driving for a while, you most likely have experienced a multiple of such situations, most of which the driver was actually talking on the phone or sending an SMS. From these earlier experiences, you form schemas, telling yourself that if a car is moving excessivly slow, it must be because the driver is on the phone.
Perhaps over time, you would also notice other drivers talking/arguing to their passenger and would simply generalize the cause to be solely distraction.
So everytime you encounter a really slow moving car (be it on the expressway or any road) you would be really irritated and your mind would be figuring out what the driver is doing, and when you spot him on the phone you go, "I KNEW IT! MUST BE ON THE PHONE!", when in fact before that, you were voicing out to yourself that he was probably talking to his passenger [Hindsight Bias: The inclination for a person to overestimate the predictability of known outcomes]. *Anyways, you would still go, "Whatever la! On the phone or talking to passenger all the same! Still talking!"*
Then you continue driving along the expressway... thoughts of your earlier incident still fuming in your head. This time, you're on the first lane and there is this other road hogger in front of you, "Basket.. another slow driver! Confirm using handphone!" [Availability Heuristic: The inclination to base a judgement on how easily relevant examples can be remembered].
Suddenly your handphone starts ringing and you frantically search your pockets with one hand and the other on the wheel. Upon finding the phone you notice the name of the caller to be your boss. *Alamak! #$^@... Kanchiong! I forgot to email the report!!!* Suddenly all thoughts about the previous road hoggers were erased from your working memory and you look down at your phone, desperately fumbling to press the uber small 'answer call' button on your little phone.
A car overtook on your left, with the driver staring at you in full view of your fingers working on the phone. The driver seems to be mumbling some gibberish (probably vulgarities) and speeds off.
-----> It seems such situations are ever present everywhere we go and in everything we do and with everyone we meet. Of course it is not always a bad situation that we find ourselves making errors in judging a person or situation.
Probably the easiest action is to simply 'bochap' huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)