hello all, this is a position paper from the APS i found that gives me a good foundation for my blog 2 topic!
The Effects of Violent Media on Children
This fact sheet is extracted from an Australian Psychological Society Position Paper entitled Media Representations and Responsibilities, which can be found on the website: www.psychology.org.au.
Introduction
• Research consistently reports very high levels of exposure to violence through electronic media;
• persistent viewing of violence on television is linked to an increased likelihood of behaving aggressively in the long-term; and
• television is only one of a number of factors which contribute to the tendency to violence and aggression, each of which makes a small but significant contribution.
What does the research tell us about its effects upon children?
• Exposure to violent television can and does influence children’s feelings, attitudes and behaviour;
• it is generally agreed that prolonged exposure to television violence is one of a number of factors which lead to children being more likely to display aggressive behaviour in both the short-term and the long-term;
• some children enjoy, and develop an appetite for, viewing violent material;
• viewing violence on television leads to immediate distress and fear in many children;
• many children retain longer-term recurrent disturbing memories from viewed violence;
• exposure to media violence can contribute to beliefs that aggression is an acceptable and effective behaviour, can induce fear and anxiety and the belief that the world is “a mean and scary place”;
• continual exposure to media violence increases the likelihood that children will be desensitised to real violence;
• age and gender are important influences on the nature of the effects, with younger children likely to be more susceptible to learning from TV; and
• the social context of viewing is important in determining the effects of exposure to violent television; e.g. if an adult helps the child interpret and critique the viewed material, the negative effects are lessened.
What does the community want?
• There is widespread community concern, particularly amongst parents and teachers, about the level of violence in television programs and videogames;
• consumers, including children, tend to dislike the amount of violence on TV; and
• most children’s preferences are for exciting and humorous programs, and violence is generally unwelcome except when it is associated with high levels of action.
What can parents do?
• Parents can know what their children are watching;
• set and enforce clear rules about the amount and type of programs watched;
• watch with their children whenever possible, and help their children interpret and critique the viewed material by means of family discussions; and
• encourage their children to engage in more active and creative pursuits, including activities with parents and other family members.
What can educators do?
• Media education curricula should be developed and widely disseminated in schools. A key element should be the provision of skills in monitoring and analysing media content;
• professional development seminars should be made widely available for teachers to enable them to increase their own media literacy skills;
• teachers can use their influence by drawing the attention of children and parents to exciting, non-violent media, and expressing their own enthusiasm over them; and
• media education should be made widely available for parents as well as for children.
What can journalists and journalism educators do?
• Recognise the complexity of the issues and avoid simplistic global assertions;
• include best-practice examples in journalism education; and
• make professional development courses available for currently practising journalists.
What can psychologists do?
• Be alert to recognising the influence of media in the ideation and emotionality of clients, particularly children and adolescents; and
• stay abreast of current research and conduct research in neglected areas.
In conclusion
It is recommended that media producers respond to the community’s concern about TV violence, hear the preferences expressed by children, and use their resources to produce exciting media material that does not rely on violence. In turn, media policy makers and regulators need to ensure that classification systems are based on the research evidence and are effectively applied, monitored and enforced.
Consumers can undertake a range of activities to influence the type and quality of media viewed by children:
• complain to appropriate bodies about material or policies of which they disapprove;
• praise programs they admire to organisations such as those listed below;
• boycott certain programs or media outlets; and
• join and support lobby groups.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Queen Bees, and Wannabes!
Hi Kara,
I will be diligently watching the progress you make with this topic! I think its quite a difficult one really, and one that has not been researched enough. At my (all girls catholic) highschool we definitely had cliques despite a lack of boys to impress! It was interesting to see how popularity changed as we progressed through the grades though! In younger years, the popular girls were those with more 'sexual' experience, who wore makeup and the right clothes. We wore a uniform so they had to make do with wearing knee high socks and jewellery. However, as we progressed into senior school, the bitchy, boycrazy girls stopped being perceived as popular and instead received more negative labels. The popular girls were the ones who were smart, nice to everyone, and had a good sense of humour. Granted, they were always still pretty! I read a great book on this a few years ago which i think you'll find useful- its what mean girls was based on. Its called 'Queen Bees and Wannabes' by Rosalind Wiseman. Have a look and let me know what you think. Ive got a copy you can borrow if you would like!
Lauren
Oprah Website- Queen Bees and Wannabes
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Does violence in the media lead to real-life aggression?
Media violence has been a topic of debate without definitive answers for many years. The primary question of focus seems to be whether or not media violence actually causes real-life violence
Of course, many factors could contribute to this, such as personality traits, the perception of 'reality' of media violence and so on. Increasingly the debate is focusing on the "culture of violence," and on the normalization of aggression and lack of empathy in our society. Indeed it seems that the more violence we view, the more desensitised we become. I myself being a romantic comedy and drama movie lover, find it quite hard to witness gruesome shooting scenes in action movies and thrillers, and i avoid horror films all together!
However the fact remains that frequent exposure to any variety of originally offensive material such as drug use, sex scenes, course language etc seems to reduce the shock factor of the content. Any comments on this phenomenon?
Food for thought:
Of course, many factors could contribute to this, such as personality traits, the perception of 'reality' of media violence and so on. Increasingly the debate is focusing on the "culture of violence," and on the normalization of aggression and lack of empathy in our society. Indeed it seems that the more violence we view, the more desensitised we become. I myself being a romantic comedy and drama movie lover, find it quite hard to witness gruesome shooting scenes in action movies and thrillers, and i avoid horror films all together!
However the fact remains that frequent exposure to any variety of originally offensive material such as drug use, sex scenes, course language etc seems to reduce the shock factor of the content. Any comments on this phenomenon?
Food for thought:
On Attractiveness....
This is a reply for Beck :)
My first thought when i looked at the celebrity pictures you posted was 'Oh dear, Patrick Dempsy is so McDreamy!' :P In fact, i managed to 'procrastinate' our procrastination essay today by watching two taped episodes of Grey's Anatomy! I think your topic is fascinating too Beck, however i would be interested to see how people rate the attractiveness of 'normal' people without all the hair, makeup and airbrushing that celebrities are priviledged with. I have read in a few places that racial mixing makes an individual more attractive (which is good news for me being half Australian and half Indian!) So I did a search and found a great article and some pictures for you.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/893/
My first thought when i looked at the celebrity pictures you posted was 'Oh dear, Patrick Dempsy is so McDreamy!' :P In fact, i managed to 'procrastinate' our procrastination essay today by watching two taped episodes of Grey's Anatomy! I think your topic is fascinating too Beck, however i would be interested to see how people rate the attractiveness of 'normal' people without all the hair, makeup and airbrushing that celebrities are priviledged with. I have read in a few places that racial mixing makes an individual more attractive (which is good news for me being half Australian and half Indian!) So I did a search and found a great article and some pictures for you.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/893/
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Children See, Children Do
In light of my new social psychology topic 'violence in the media and its impact upon children', i thought i'd start by posting a few videos which highlight the effect of social learning theory, whereby children acquire behaviours by watching them being performed. This first video is a powerful commercial on television warning parents about the impact their behaviour has on their children. It shows children copying behaviours ranging from smoking, to vomiting, to racism, to physical violence. Quite a powerful ad!
This second video is of Bandura's famous (1965) bo bo doll experiment where children are seen to be copying violent behaviours modelled by adults towards a bo bo clown doll. The other important component of this experiment was that children witnessed one of two outcomes of such aggressive behaviour- either they saw the model being rewarded for the behaviour, or punished for the behaviour. Children who saw the model being rewarded for the behaviour were far more likely to replicate the aggressive behaviour towards the bobo doll.
This second video is of Bandura's famous (1965) bo bo doll experiment where children are seen to be copying violent behaviours modelled by adults towards a bo bo clown doll. The other important component of this experiment was that children witnessed one of two outcomes of such aggressive behaviour- either they saw the model being rewarded for the behaviour, or punished for the behaviour. Children who saw the model being rewarded for the behaviour were far more likely to replicate the aggressive behaviour towards the bobo doll.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Variables of prejudice, aggression, and group influence: Integration that results in genocide
Abstract
This essay attempts to highlight some of the key social psychological antecedents to genocide by exploring and applying social theories and concepts to the WWII Holocaust, and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. An interaction of multiple variables was hypothesized to contribute to genocide. The three key areas of exploration were divided into concepts surrouding prejudice, aggression, and group influence. Prejudicial variables such as negative steriotypes were suggested to lead to group polarization, dehumanization, and in-group bias. Aggression and hate, championed by charismatic and powerful leaders was also proposed to lead to violent acts justified by moral exclusion and 'just world thinking'. Finally, the effect of group influence on individual behaviour was explored, and concepts such as deindividuation, obedience, and conformity were also found to act as antecedents to genocide.
Introduction
Following the genocide committed by the Nazis in World War II the expression “never again” was widely and passionately brandished, however this was certainly not to be the last. During the last decade of the 20th century, the world has witnessed massacres and genocides in record numbers. These were not random killings or sudden bursts of irrationality on the part of crowds. Rather, they were carefully planned and orchestrated killings inspired by racial hatred, aggression and dehumanization that have come close to matching the grand- scale deaths produced by the Nazis during the Holocaust. In 1994, over one million Tutsi men, women, and children were massacred by the Hutu militia. Signs of impending crisis were plainly visible in Rwanda in late 1993 (see Ghosts of Rwanda video/website). Social conflicts escalated almost daily, reflecting an angry polarization between the state and the public (Smith, 1998). Yet, by the time international forces intervened, it was much too late, and only 130,000 Tutsis had survived the brutal ethnic cleansing.
Definitions of genocide vary, however according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the key theme is ‘the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group as such, by killing members of the group or imposing conditions detrimental to survival’. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group, and forcibly transferring children of one group to another group are all aspects of genocide incorporated into this definition (Sternberg, 2003). There are a vast number of psychosocial variables that might help to explain the occurrence of genocide; however concepts surrounding prejudice, aggression, and group influence will be the centre of exploration.
The Role of Prejudice
Prejudicial variables such as stereotypes play a strong role in the storm of psychosocial variables that preempt genocide. Stereotypes are beliefs that associate groups with certain traits (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In order to justify the murders that took place during the Holocaust, the Nazis used not only racist arguments but also arguments derived from older negative stereotypes, such as that Jews were communist subversives, war profiteers and hoarders, and a danger to internal security because of their inherent disloyalty and opposition to Germany (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2007). More dehumanising negative stereotypes depicted Jews as power crazed, greedy, ugly, rat like, filthy, and as insects that needed to be exterminated (Sternberg, 2003). In contrast, positive stereotypes were created for the Aryans who were portrayed as handsome, beautiful, desirable, pure, and even godlike (Sternberg, 2003). Such stereotypes serve to introduce an attitude of fear and hatred into a society in which there are minority groups, and in the case of Nazi Germany, the next progression towards genocide was the development of an ‘us and them’ mentality which was concentrated on the removal of Jews, Gypsies, and other minority groups in order to ‘protect’ the Aryans.
In 1938 as a means of minimising individual identity and dehumanisation, Jewish men and women bearing Christian names of ‘non Jewish’ origin were forced to add ‘Israel’ to their first name, carry identity cards indicating their Jewish heritage, and eventually were forced by law to wear a Star of David patch to distinguish them from the white Germans (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2007). The events of removing the rights of Jewish citizens, seizing their possessions, and segregating them on the basis of their ethnic and religious identity are consistent with stages five and six in ‘The eight stages of genocide’- polarization and identification (Stanton, 1998).
Similarly in Rwanda, genocide was carefully planned with Hutus painting negative stereotypes of the Tutsis in order to create polarization of the two groups and manipulate public opinion towards the Tutsi minority who were seen as having stolen power and resources from native Hutus. The Tutsi group was therefore portrayed as evil and culturally alien to Rwanda. What started as stereotypes and hatred towards a minority group resulted in a mass genocide of almost 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis (Sternberg, 2003).
Short film summarising the Rwandan Genocide:
The Role of Aggression and Hate
Aggression and hate are also necessary antecedents to genocide. According to Sternberg (2003), one of the most powerful forces underlying mass killings is hate that is cultivated to accomplish ends that are mindfully, planfully, and systematically conceived. During the Holocaust, the Nazis used a variety of techniques to incite loathing towards targeted groups. Adolf Hitler seemed to recognise the power of hatred in pulling together a diverse group of followers, and was able to activate hatred in his cohort so that seemingly unrelated enemies appeared to belong in a single category (Sternberg, 2003). He used mass demonstrations and parades utilising propaganda depicting all Jews as ‘evil’ to incite passion in followers towards all that he represented (Alford, 1999).
As mentioned, the establishment of target group stereotypes and the subsequent incitement of hatred towards that group can create an ‘us and them’ mentality and an in-group bias. As a result, violent acts towards this group often follow, and are explained and interpreted by the perpetrators as a response to the actions, intentions or character of their victims. In other words, the perpetrators are engaging in ‘just world’ thinking, and justifying their own violent acts as a response to undesirable characteristics of the victims. According to Macrae et al. (1997), this leads to an increasing devaluation of their victims and eventually a type of ‘moral exclusion’ whereby values and moral standards that would usually apply to everyone else no longer are applied to behavioural acts directed towards their victims. This is how genocide begins: the seed of hate is planted, and the facilitation of aggressive tendencies via stereotypical propaganda leads to devaluation of the victim, and the escalation of violent acts. However, it may seem implausible that an individual who previously has not expressed prejudice or hatred towards a particular group can behave in a manner so contradictory to their character or perceived capabilities. Such factors might be better understood by examining the variables surrounding group influence.
The Role of Group Influence
Ordinary people can be driven by unfortunate circumstances and leaders who are charismatic, powerful and influential into behaviors in which, under more normal circumstances, they might never have engaged. Within genocide, some people may be propelled by hate and others by factors that are quite different, such as the desire to advance their careers or to save their own lives. For example, fear of the Nazi party and Hitler himself may well have been one of the strongest incentives to conform to the Nazi regime. Milgram’s (1963) experiments with obedience in a laboratory setting showed that ordinary people would in fact administer what they believed to be painful and life threatening shocks to an unseen individual if given the chance. A subsequent study by Milgram (1964) revealed that group influence can shape behaviour in ways that might have been perceived to be highly resistant to group pressure, such as administering pain to another individual at the command of the group. Milgram proposes that the degree to which the behaviour is executed would be much lesser in the absence of social pressure.
Deindividuation refers to a loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability as a result of a group environment (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). A simple way of illustrating this concept was quoted by Stanislaus Lezczynski (King of Poland in the 1700’s) - ‘No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible’. In this same way, perpetrators of genocide often lose their ability to act in a moral and conscious manner when faced with the potential for anonymous aggression. Instead, they may act on impulse, increasing antisocial behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The result is that self-interest is overridden by the interests of the group, and in circumstances such as Nazi Germany and Hutu Rwanda the result of this process was devastating and destructive on a large scale. A conclusion reached by Postmes and Spears (1998) suggested that loss of accountability acts as a predictor for aggression. Thus one of the most logical ways to reduce violent acts that are a result of deindividuation would be to increase individual accountability.
Conclusion
By exploring the tragic genocides that occurred in Rwanda in 1994 and during the Holocaust in World War II, it has emerged that genocide develops and eventuates from a collation of psycho social variables. Prejudicial influences, such as negative stereotypes have been found to be a key antecedent to genocide. Such negative stereotypes can lead to the dehumanization of minority groups and result in increasing polarization of these two opposing groups facilitated by an ‘us and them’ mentality, or in-group bias. Powerful and influential leadership groups such as the Nazis and the Hutus use propaganda to implant aggression and hate towards a target group. As a result of the dehumanization process, perpetrators justify violent acts towards target groups by engaging in ‘just world’ thinking, and moral exclusion. Finally, the seemingly uncharacteristic violent acts of otherwise normal individuals can be somewhat accounted for by examining group environments and the resulting reduction of individual accountability and self awareness through the process of deindividuation, obedience, and conformity.
References
Alford, C. F. (1999). Hatred is counterfeit community and the simulacrum of love. Journal of Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, 2, 39–45.
Baumeister, R., & Bushman, B. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Thomson-Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Thorn, T., & Castelli, L. (1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 471–489.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1964). Group pressure and action against a person. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 137-143.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormatic behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
Smith, D.N. (1998). The psychocultural roots of genocide: Legitimacy and crisis in Rwanda. American Psychologist, 53(7), 743-753.
Stanton, G. (1998). The eight stages of genocide. Genocide Watch, retrieved online from: http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm on 15 August, 2007.
Sternberg, R. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide. Review of General Psychology, 7(3), 299-328.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Germany." Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005681 on 30 August, 2007.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "The Holocaust." Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005143 on 30 August, 2007.
Video Resources:
Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/
Short Rwandan Genocide Film: http://www.youtube.com/v/XsdPrQNa0Ig
Hyperlink definitions: http://www.reference.com
Concept Map
Appendices
Word count: 1,504
Self Evaluation
Online Engagement
I set up my blog within the first two weeks of semester and although i was a bit unsure of this whole blogging process i attempted to research my topic early and provide some comment on my own personal experience with countries that have experienced genocide. I have posted photos and videos, and made an effort to develop a personal profile with a photo of myself. I concede that i havent made as many posts as i could have, and could have benefited greatly from posting draft essays and concept maps earlier, however now that i understand more about the blogging world i feel i will be more confident to engage more for blog 2. In terms of engaging with others on their blogs, i certainly attempted to read the most recent posts every couple of days, but didn't comment as much as i could have, instead reserving my comments for blogs on which i had a strong opinion. Overall i would give myself a credit for online engagement.
Following are links to posts that i have made on my own blog:
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/07/holocaust.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/hi-everyone-as-i-was-searching-for.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/8-stages-of-genocide.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/test-concept-map.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/updated-concept-map.html
Following are links to others' blogs on which i have commented:
http://kelg85socialpsychblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/harry-potter-and-eight-stages-of.html
http://clarebear-socialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/maybe-we-just-cant-help-it.html
http://karensocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/words-from-carl-wilkens.html
http://powellpsychology.blogspot.com/2007/08/don-let-ice-destroy-you.html
Written Expression
A readability analysis revealed a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12, and a Flesch Reading Ease score of 28 initally. By shortening sentences, and making paragraphs more concise and by adding an abstract, my Flesch reading score improved to 34. This analysis confuses me though, because you can obtain a different statistic every time-i have obtained at least 5 different scores for the same text. I have attempted to use APA format throughout the entire essay, and am confident of my ability to reference using an APA style. The bolded headings were utilized to make the essay flow better, and to organize the concepts into logical paragraphs. A concept map was created before the essay was started, highlighting three main themes, each of which has social psychology theories and examples of these theories from both the Rwandan and Holocaust genocides. I have deliberately kept the concept map uncluttered and simple to aid understanding rather than hinder it. The essay was based on the layout of the concept map, and all three key themes: Aggression, prejudice and group influence were all found to be interrelated. I have also included a short video and a photo within the body of the text. This was not intended as a distraction, but as a means of making the blog more colourful, interesting and interactive. In future blogs, I would even attempt to use more pictures to break up the text.
Theory and Research
Textbooks, journal articles, online encyclopedias, and websites were used to research this topic. I have included examples from both the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust both of which were enough to help me explore the social concepts outlined in the concept map. I have included as many theories and concepts as the word count would allow, and although I could have included more references to reflect research, it was unnecessary for this blog. Reference.com was used to create hyperlinks to words that may have required a more complete definition.
This essay attempts to highlight some of the key social psychological antecedents to genocide by exploring and applying social theories and concepts to the WWII Holocaust, and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. An interaction of multiple variables was hypothesized to contribute to genocide. The three key areas of exploration were divided into concepts surrouding prejudice, aggression, and group influence. Prejudicial variables such as negative steriotypes were suggested to lead to group polarization, dehumanization, and in-group bias. Aggression and hate, championed by charismatic and powerful leaders was also proposed to lead to violent acts justified by moral exclusion and 'just world thinking'. Finally, the effect of group influence on individual behaviour was explored, and concepts such as deindividuation, obedience, and conformity were also found to act as antecedents to genocide.
Introduction
Following the genocide committed by the Nazis in World War II the expression “never again” was widely and passionately brandished, however this was certainly not to be the last. During the last decade of the 20th century, the world has witnessed massacres and genocides in record numbers. These were not random killings or sudden bursts of irrationality on the part of crowds. Rather, they were carefully planned and orchestrated killings inspired by racial hatred, aggression and dehumanization that have come close to matching the grand- scale deaths produced by the Nazis during the Holocaust. In 1994, over one million Tutsi men, women, and children were massacred by the Hutu militia. Signs of impending crisis were plainly visible in Rwanda in late 1993 (see Ghosts of Rwanda video/website). Social conflicts escalated almost daily, reflecting an angry polarization between the state and the public (Smith, 1998). Yet, by the time international forces intervened, it was much too late, and only 130,000 Tutsis had survived the brutal ethnic cleansing.
Definitions of genocide vary, however according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the key theme is ‘the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group as such, by killing members of the group or imposing conditions detrimental to survival’. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group, and forcibly transferring children of one group to another group are all aspects of genocide incorporated into this definition (Sternberg, 2003). There are a vast number of psychosocial variables that might help to explain the occurrence of genocide; however concepts surrounding prejudice, aggression, and group influence will be the centre of exploration.
The Role of Prejudice
Prejudicial variables such as stereotypes play a strong role in the storm of psychosocial variables that preempt genocide. Stereotypes are beliefs that associate groups with certain traits (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In order to justify the murders that took place during the Holocaust, the Nazis used not only racist arguments but also arguments derived from older negative stereotypes, such as that Jews were communist subversives, war profiteers and hoarders, and a danger to internal security because of their inherent disloyalty and opposition to Germany (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2007). More dehumanising negative stereotypes depicted Jews as power crazed, greedy, ugly, rat like, filthy, and as insects that needed to be exterminated (Sternberg, 2003). In contrast, positive stereotypes were created for the Aryans who were portrayed as handsome, beautiful, desirable, pure, and even godlike (Sternberg, 2003). Such stereotypes serve to introduce an attitude of fear and hatred into a society in which there are minority groups, and in the case of Nazi Germany, the next progression towards genocide was the development of an ‘us and them’ mentality which was concentrated on the removal of Jews, Gypsies, and other minority groups in order to ‘protect’ the Aryans.
In 1938 as a means of minimising individual identity and dehumanisation, Jewish men and women bearing Christian names of ‘non Jewish’ origin were forced to add ‘Israel’ to their first name, carry identity cards indicating their Jewish heritage, and eventually were forced by law to wear a Star of David patch to distinguish them from the white Germans (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2007). The events of removing the rights of Jewish citizens, seizing their possessions, and segregating them on the basis of their ethnic and religious identity are consistent with stages five and six in ‘The eight stages of genocide’- polarization and identification (Stanton, 1998).
Similarly in Rwanda, genocide was carefully planned with Hutus painting negative stereotypes of the Tutsis in order to create polarization of the two groups and manipulate public opinion towards the Tutsi minority who were seen as having stolen power and resources from native Hutus. The Tutsi group was therefore portrayed as evil and culturally alien to Rwanda. What started as stereotypes and hatred towards a minority group resulted in a mass genocide of almost 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis (Sternberg, 2003).
Short film summarising the Rwandan Genocide:
The Role of Aggression and Hate
Aggression and hate are also necessary antecedents to genocide. According to Sternberg (2003), one of the most powerful forces underlying mass killings is hate that is cultivated to accomplish ends that are mindfully, planfully, and systematically conceived. During the Holocaust, the Nazis used a variety of techniques to incite loathing towards targeted groups. Adolf Hitler seemed to recognise the power of hatred in pulling together a diverse group of followers, and was able to activate hatred in his cohort so that seemingly unrelated enemies appeared to belong in a single category (Sternberg, 2003). He used mass demonstrations and parades utilising propaganda depicting all Jews as ‘evil’ to incite passion in followers towards all that he represented (Alford, 1999).
As mentioned, the establishment of target group stereotypes and the subsequent incitement of hatred towards that group can create an ‘us and them’ mentality and an in-group bias. As a result, violent acts towards this group often follow, and are explained and interpreted by the perpetrators as a response to the actions, intentions or character of their victims. In other words, the perpetrators are engaging in ‘just world’ thinking, and justifying their own violent acts as a response to undesirable characteristics of the victims. According to Macrae et al. (1997), this leads to an increasing devaluation of their victims and eventually a type of ‘moral exclusion’ whereby values and moral standards that would usually apply to everyone else no longer are applied to behavioural acts directed towards their victims. This is how genocide begins: the seed of hate is planted, and the facilitation of aggressive tendencies via stereotypical propaganda leads to devaluation of the victim, and the escalation of violent acts. However, it may seem implausible that an individual who previously has not expressed prejudice or hatred towards a particular group can behave in a manner so contradictory to their character or perceived capabilities. Such factors might be better understood by examining the variables surrounding group influence.
The Role of Group Influence
Ordinary people can be driven by unfortunate circumstances and leaders who are charismatic, powerful and influential into behaviors in which, under more normal circumstances, they might never have engaged. Within genocide, some people may be propelled by hate and others by factors that are quite different, such as the desire to advance their careers or to save their own lives. For example, fear of the Nazi party and Hitler himself may well have been one of the strongest incentives to conform to the Nazi regime. Milgram’s (1963) experiments with obedience in a laboratory setting showed that ordinary people would in fact administer what they believed to be painful and life threatening shocks to an unseen individual if given the chance. A subsequent study by Milgram (1964) revealed that group influence can shape behaviour in ways that might have been perceived to be highly resistant to group pressure, such as administering pain to another individual at the command of the group. Milgram proposes that the degree to which the behaviour is executed would be much lesser in the absence of social pressure.
Deindividuation refers to a loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability as a result of a group environment (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). A simple way of illustrating this concept was quoted by Stanislaus Lezczynski (King of Poland in the 1700’s) - ‘No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible’. In this same way, perpetrators of genocide often lose their ability to act in a moral and conscious manner when faced with the potential for anonymous aggression. Instead, they may act on impulse, increasing antisocial behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The result is that self-interest is overridden by the interests of the group, and in circumstances such as Nazi Germany and Hutu Rwanda the result of this process was devastating and destructive on a large scale. A conclusion reached by Postmes and Spears (1998) suggested that loss of accountability acts as a predictor for aggression. Thus one of the most logical ways to reduce violent acts that are a result of deindividuation would be to increase individual accountability.
Conclusion
By exploring the tragic genocides that occurred in Rwanda in 1994 and during the Holocaust in World War II, it has emerged that genocide develops and eventuates from a collation of psycho social variables. Prejudicial influences, such as negative stereotypes have been found to be a key antecedent to genocide. Such negative stereotypes can lead to the dehumanization of minority groups and result in increasing polarization of these two opposing groups facilitated by an ‘us and them’ mentality, or in-group bias. Powerful and influential leadership groups such as the Nazis and the Hutus use propaganda to implant aggression and hate towards a target group. As a result of the dehumanization process, perpetrators justify violent acts towards target groups by engaging in ‘just world’ thinking, and moral exclusion. Finally, the seemingly uncharacteristic violent acts of otherwise normal individuals can be somewhat accounted for by examining group environments and the resulting reduction of individual accountability and self awareness through the process of deindividuation, obedience, and conformity.
References
Alford, C. F. (1999). Hatred is counterfeit community and the simulacrum of love. Journal of Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, 2, 39–45.
Baumeister, R., & Bushman, B. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Thomson-Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Thorn, T., & Castelli, L. (1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 471–489.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1964). Group pressure and action against a person. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 137-143.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormatic behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
Smith, D.N. (1998). The psychocultural roots of genocide: Legitimacy and crisis in Rwanda. American Psychologist, 53(7), 743-753.
Stanton, G. (1998). The eight stages of genocide. Genocide Watch, retrieved online from: http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm on 15 August, 2007.
Sternberg, R. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide. Review of General Psychology, 7(3), 299-328.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Germany." Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005681 on 30 August, 2007.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "The Holocaust." Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005143 on 30 August, 2007.
Video Resources:
Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/
Short Rwandan Genocide Film: http://www.youtube.com/v/XsdPrQNa0Ig
Hyperlink definitions: http://www.reference.com
Concept Map
Appendices
Word count: 1,504
Self Evaluation
Online Engagement
I set up my blog within the first two weeks of semester and although i was a bit unsure of this whole blogging process i attempted to research my topic early and provide some comment on my own personal experience with countries that have experienced genocide. I have posted photos and videos, and made an effort to develop a personal profile with a photo of myself. I concede that i havent made as many posts as i could have, and could have benefited greatly from posting draft essays and concept maps earlier, however now that i understand more about the blogging world i feel i will be more confident to engage more for blog 2. In terms of engaging with others on their blogs, i certainly attempted to read the most recent posts every couple of days, but didn't comment as much as i could have, instead reserving my comments for blogs on which i had a strong opinion. Overall i would give myself a credit for online engagement.
Following are links to posts that i have made on my own blog:
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/07/holocaust.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/hi-everyone-as-i-was-searching-for.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/8-stages-of-genocide.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/test-concept-map.html
http://mrsfreud.blogspot.com/2007/08/updated-concept-map.html
Following are links to others' blogs on which i have commented:
http://kelg85socialpsychblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/harry-potter-and-eight-stages-of.html
http://clarebear-socialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/maybe-we-just-cant-help-it.html
http://karensocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/words-from-carl-wilkens.html
http://powellpsychology.blogspot.com/2007/08/don-let-ice-destroy-you.html
Written Expression
A readability analysis revealed a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12, and a Flesch Reading Ease score of 28 initally. By shortening sentences, and making paragraphs more concise and by adding an abstract, my Flesch reading score improved to 34. This analysis confuses me though, because you can obtain a different statistic every time-i have obtained at least 5 different scores for the same text. I have attempted to use APA format throughout the entire essay, and am confident of my ability to reference using an APA style. The bolded headings were utilized to make the essay flow better, and to organize the concepts into logical paragraphs. A concept map was created before the essay was started, highlighting three main themes, each of which has social psychology theories and examples of these theories from both the Rwandan and Holocaust genocides. I have deliberately kept the concept map uncluttered and simple to aid understanding rather than hinder it. The essay was based on the layout of the concept map, and all three key themes: Aggression, prejudice and group influence were all found to be interrelated. I have also included a short video and a photo within the body of the text. This was not intended as a distraction, but as a means of making the blog more colourful, interesting and interactive. In future blogs, I would even attempt to use more pictures to break up the text.
Theory and Research
Textbooks, journal articles, online encyclopedias, and websites were used to research this topic. I have included examples from both the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust both of which were enough to help me explore the social concepts outlined in the concept map. I have included as many theories and concepts as the word count would allow, and although I could have included more references to reflect research, it was unnecessary for this blog. Reference.com was used to create hyperlinks to words that may have required a more complete definition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
