In my attitude change project, I will be targeting young boys between the ages of 8-12 to try to alter their attitudes towards sexual harassment. I will mainly use the central route to persuasion as it has a more lasting effect in terms of attitude and behavioral change. The program includes a lot of different activities, videos and movies that create an engaging setting for children to grasp their attention. Each video and activity is aimed to target a particular set of attitudes, either cognitively based attitudes, affectively based attitudes or cognitively based attitudes. For example, the movie La Mo’akhza will be screened to target the children’s affectively based attitudes as they empathize with the teacher being sexually harassed. Consequently, according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, they will learn to help women or girls who are being sexually harassed. This particular video is self produced and it focuses on changing children’s cognitively based attitudes towards sexual harassment. It depicts a group of friends in which the “cool” kid sexually harasses, and although his friends think it is wrong, they do nothing about it. However, on a given day, their friend Beethoven is present and he stands up for the girl being harassed, and explains to Chris that what he is doing is wrong. The video ends with Beethoven’s name being chanted, while “Say No to Sexual Harassment” appears on the screen. The video itself is self explanatory but the attitude change is more dependent upon the discussion that ensues. Simplistic explanations of the bystander effect and conformity will follow, guiding the students on how they should act in certain situations where sexual harassment takes place. Furthermore, the video highlights how the children’s descriptive norms are not true. The video is one part of a complex program that will hopefully change children’s cognition and construal of harassment and decrease sexual harassment rates in Egypt in the near future.
Although I come from a somewhat conservative household, I used to hold a prejudice against religious people. In my mind, I’d stereotyped them as close-minded individuals, whose company is boring and religion-based. I gave no controlled thinking to the idea of individual differences, and instead, I automatically and unconsciously “grouped” being”religious” (whatever that even means) to being isolated, dissatisfied and unmotivated. I guess my attitude of grouping aligned with the Implicit Personality Theory. So anyways, I created several illusory correlations between devout individuals and certain traits. For example, I thought religious people were boring; and so, when I would interact with them, I would remain extremely silent and I would give one word answers. Not only was that a form of discrimination, but it was also a portrayal of the self-fulfilling prophecy: When people act towards others in a way that conforms their expectations of those people. Also, since some of the people were unaware of the existence of a stereotype threat, they would go on and on about God and their beliefs; I would use those conversations to confirm my stereotype.
Further amplifying my prejudice was perhaps the institutional discrimination that I observed at my school. There wasn’t really any institutional sexism, but it was more of discrimination against religious people. Most of the teachers employed were open-minded, and those who weren’t were either treated poorly and left, or they would give in to normative conformity. Most of them would change the way they dressed a little bit and they would carefully avoid certain topics of discussion. There was actually a religious girl with us who was the students’ scapegoat in a way, since any frustration or anger would be taken out on her, until she too changed her style of clothing, and became very cautious around people. Since I saw the same actions from those I interacted with, I strongly began to believe in out-group homogeneity. Eventually, that led to the ultimate attribution error, which in this case, was prejudice against anyone who publicly discussed religious matters. Despite all of these attitudes, however, I still displayed perfectly modern racism. I had not allowed myself to discriminate in any extreme or harmful way that would disclaim my “I’m unprejudiced” attitude.
One day however, I experienced mutual interdependence with extremely religious people, and although I was initially unwilling to be myself around them, I did not really have a choice. As our beneficial relationship continued, I was “shocked” at how alike we actually were; people didn’t necessarily have to be part of my in-group for us to share beliefs and ideas. As a result, I began to question my affectively based attitudes and stereotypes about religious people in a cognitive and controlled manner, and I understood how illogical my stereotypes were. Moreover, I realized that my correlations were extremely biased since my schematic definition of religious people was based on their attire, but what about religious individuals who don’t necessarily wear a veil or a abayah? And what about people who are veiled but aren’t religious? And what is “religious” anyway?
Below are images of stereotypes and discrimination in different parts of the world.
Is every act of kindness actually a selfish act? Advocates of prosocial behavior and altruism would definitely oppose this notion of selfishness; to them, people are willing to do good for no personal benefit, even at a cost to their own well being. For instance, a rich person who gives away a huge portion of his money to an orphanage would certainly lack the norm of reciprocity. Wouldn’t that then, be purely altruistic? After all, he must have empathized with the poor and fulfilled the empathy-altruism hypothesis, where a person who empathizes with others tries to help them for unselfish reasons. Further supporting his cause is his ability to help members of an out-group, the orphans, to whom he cannot identify with. Not only that, but he would also defy the urban overload hypothesis, since he did not give in to the overwhelming stimuli around him. What if, however, these assumptions were incorrect? What if he gave away money in order to raise his self-esteem, or to reduce his cognitive dissonance through self-affirmation? Would that make him a bad person?
Let us consider another situation. A group of people watched a rape take place but did nothing to stop it. Wouldn’t those people definitely be bad? No. The bystander effect is perhaps more powerful than their best motives, for the greater the number of bystanders, the more that pluralistic ignorance takes place. In other words, everyone depends on the others to help, so no one actually helps. A huge diffusion of responsibility takes place, where each person’s sense of responsibility decreases. Consequently, the assumption that those bystanders are innately bad would be a fundamental attribution error. But what about the rapist committing the crime? Such an aggressive act that is aimed to cause physical and psychological pain must truly make a person bad! Rape, in this case, is far from instrumental aggression, but an act that is solely hostile. Perhaps this can be explained by the frustration-aggression theory, where an aggressive response was elicited due to the inability to attain a goal. Regardless of social scripts, emotional catharsis was far more critical. So the question is, was this rapist put in a bad situation, or is he innately bad? Are people born “blank slates” and develop their personalities along the way, or are they born either good or bad?
I guess we can take a final example. A little child watches his mother use a knife to cut bread, while another one watches his father use it for murder. Couldn’t that single scene permanently alter a child’s understanding of what knives are for? The Social Learning Theory suggests that people learn negative and aggressive social behavior through imitation. Not only that, but phenomena such as operant conditioning and classical conditioning also play a huge role in a child’s behaviors, attitudes and construals. I think it is safe to say then, that we are born not knowing what is good and what is bad, but we learn along the way. Accordingly, it is possible for acts of kindness to be selfless acts, for ignorance to be situational, and for negative acts to stem from personal traits. However, it is ultimately up to each person to decide whether they will overcome the bystander effect, perform philanthropic deeds, or act in ways that are purely selfish.
Below is a video which displays people who chose to stop and help, others who were urbanely overloaded, and those who simply decided to walk away.
Conformity is when we change our behavior to align with that of other people, and informative social influence is when we follow those around us when put in an ambiguous situation, because we trust their judgment more than our own. For example, when making a decision in an unclear situation, we’re sometimes 90 percent sure of it, but we need that last 10 percent. However, when we hastily seek advice and a couple of people disagree with us, we might change our decision completely, with no private acceptance. More likely than not, we end up regretting those choices, for they are a direct result of conformity and a lack of controlled thinking.
Furthermore, when it comes to more socially relevant issues, such as one’s political standing, some people fall victims to normative social influence, where they publicly comply to a group in order to fit in and become accepted. The person socially tunes himself to that group’s social norms, and allows their norms to become the basis of his public decisions. For instance, if a woman wants her Islamist friends to accept her, she will probably start advocating the Muslim Brotherhood, and maybe even accompany her friends to some of their meetings. Although she does not believe in what she is doing, she is guided by her injunctive norms, for she wants to fit in and to have high self-esteem. Moreover, she will gain idiosyncrasy credits as she continues to conform, allowing her occasional deviance from the group to be accepted. To what extent would she continue to conform, though? The Social Impact Theory would explain the strength of the Islamist’s social influence on her in terms of three factors: the group’s importance, how close they are to the woman, and how large the group is.
As opposed to one person conforming to a group, there is also minority influence, where a small group of people (good or bad) change the majority’s actions or beliefs. So let’s say, two out of ten people in a group smoke. While each person’s injunctive norm towards smoking is that it’s wrong, the descriptive norm is that everyone smokes anyways. Such a descriptive norm, along with persuasive communication can cause the minority (the non-smokers) to begin smoking. Thus, the observed behavior becomes a habit.
Some people may internally justify those habits by owning up to their decisions despite their cognitive dissonance, while others might externally justify their behavior by blaming it on those around them. Regardless of each person’s method of self-persuasion, the existence of these new habits, actions, beliefs or decisions highlights the effect of conformity. It also poses extremely thought-provoking questions: Do we truly make our own decisions? How much of our lives do we actually control?
Below are some images of conformity.