Blog 2: "The Kindness Paradox"

Abstract

There are many theories about the motivations for acts of kindness. These generate from the observation of social and intinctive behaviours, and often, theorists attempt to explain this social behaviour using a combination of the two. Social influence can play a large role in altruistic behaviour, as can one's self-image. While social psychologists are often interested in why people help others, it is also quite interesting to see who they are more likely to help. Different techniques have been developed throughout the years to help answer these questions and will be discussed in this essay.

Discussion of “The Kindness Paradox”

Benjamin Franklin, American inventor and pioneer, once stated that “"he that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged”. This is known as the “Benjamin Franklin Effect” or "The Kindness Paradox". Franklin’s statement implies acts of kindness and altruism; concepts which have been explained through the development of social psychological theories. The application of these theories to different studies has led to the understanding of what influences people to perform acts of kindness by examining the roles of psychology and society in altruistic behaviour.

Kindness may be defined as a helpful act towards someone in need (Myers, 2004) or may proceed from “a good-natured readiness to benefit or please others” (Burgquist, 1975). Benevolence and acting cordially towards others has been shown to be of benefit to those both at the giving and receiving end (Post, 2005). One study investigating the relationship between helping behaviour and good health found there was a strong positive correlation between these two variables and also indicated benefits for overall well-being, happiness and longevity (Post, 2005).

Motives for acts of kindness have also been observed by many social theorists. Social psychologists have found that helpful behaviour is both influenced by how someone is viewed by others and how one thinks of themselves (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Normative influence is a concept that discusses the importance for humans to belong to social groups (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). While this need for affiliation has relevance to survival, it also appears to have strong social and emotional considerations which assist in decreasing ingroup threat (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Therefore, people generally conform to the behaviours and attitudes of others to avoid any social awkwardness or confrontation (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

Support for Benjamin Franklin’s claim is apparent in the foot-in-the-door technique. This phenomenon explains that when somebody is asked a small favour, their willingness to comply with larger favours after that is much more probable (Gueguen & Jacob, 2001). One recent study looked into the effects of using the foot-in-the-door technique when asking for electronic donations through the internet. Results showed that there was a significant increase in the likelihood of people donating to the requested charity when small requests were made of the participant prior to a large and final demand (Gueguen & Jacob, 2001).

Another aspect to kindness is self-concept. People generally like to create a good impression of themselves to those around themselves (Myers, 2004), however it appears that maintaining a healthy self-image is also important when demonstrating kindness (Schneider & Eustis, 1972; Foehl & Goldman, 1983). Self-image influences the type of behaviour displayed or even whether they exhibit at all (Foehl & Goldman, 1983). A study investigating self-concept, altruistic behaviour and the foot-in-the-door technique found that participants who were given the label “helpful” or “altruistic” were far more likely to show these characteristics than those who did not receive labels (Foehl & Goldman, 1983). Experiments such as these demonstrate the importance of factors such as high self-esteem and altruistic personality traits when analysing kindness. It also supports the notion that the actions humans perform are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

While Benjamin Franklin’s statement suggests altruism and pure generosity to be the key features contributing to acts of kindness, other research proposes alternate motives. Being liked, or what is psychologically termed ingratiation, appears fundamental in determining both the quality and quantity of generous actions (Seiter, 2007). One study demonstrated this by analysing the tipping behaviour of customers in a restaurant towards those serving them. Those who were complimented by the person they were being served by throughout the evening gave more generously than those who did not receive compliments (Seiter, 2007). It appears that while some helpful acts are based on generosity and pure giving, others depend highly on reciprocity.

The norm of reciprocity is one of the underlying motives for kindness. Contrary to the beliefs suggested by Benjamin Franklin’s quote, humans generally do give to receive (Burger, Horita, Kinoshita, Roberts, Vera, 1997; Myers, 2004). Ultimately, before an action of giving is performed (such as donating to a charity or volunteering time, one will tend to weigh up the costs and benefits of this action so that the rewards are in their favour (Myers, 2004). Examples of reciprocity can be found all over the world throughout almost every culture; from the Buddhist concept of Karma to the everyday functioning of most societies (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Reciprocity works as a motivator for giving because people feel obliged to do something nice for those who have done a favour for them. Social psychologists commonly refer to this as the social exchange theory, where both parties benefit from the giving behaviour (Myers, 2004).

The words of Franklin suggest benefits to individuals and the wider community, similar to altruism. Sheer altruism is perhaps considered the highest expression of kindness and pro-social behaviour. It is defined by giving and expecting nothing in return, but is often at the scrutiny and scepticism of others (Myers, 2004). The classic psychological example to support this cynicism is that of the bystander effect. This phenomenon analyses the behaviours of others when placed in a situation where they are given the opportunity to help someone in need (Darley & Batson, 1973). More often than not, people become slower to respond to the situation because of decreased sense of responsibility to act (Darley & Batson, 1973). Countless social experiments have been performed in order to investigate helping behaviour through this method. One experiment in particular, showed that time constraints also played a role in determining whether a person would stop to help another (Darley & Batson, 1973). While there may be several excuses or reasons for not stopping to offer help to someone in need, altruism in its truest form should not be dependent on additional social and personal pressures.

Finally, it is apparent that there is some element of similarity when it comes to defining what motivates kindness, whether genetically or socially (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Though humans mingle with a variety of different peers throughout their lives, it is clear that it is those who they are related to that they are more willing to help and are most generous towards (Karbo, 2006). In terms of the survival of ones genes, this reason for giving is fairly logical. Research has even proven that people are more likely to assist those who are closer to them genetically. For instance, a mother is far more likely to help her child in need then she is her cousin (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Benjamin Franklin perhaps recognised this also when he said this now famous quote. The words he said suggest helping behaviour goes on between two people who share a common link. Socially, individuals who share common beliefs, traits or physical characteristics tend to group together and help one another to assist the group as a whole (Karbo, 2006). This relates to what was said earlier about conformity and reducing ingroup threat.

In addition, this kinship theory suggests that the motivations for being kind or unkind can depend on physical or emotional closeness, the amount of “liking” that is transferred between the two individuals and also the amount of pressure they experience to help socially and morally (Karbo, 2006). A study conducted in 1969 demonstrated that giving, rather than receiving, is what makes a person like and value another (Burger & Caldwell, 2003). In this study, participants were given the opportunity to win some money. Participants were divided into 3 groups and asked to rate how much they liked the research conductor. Group A and B were told, before giving their rating, that the money they had “won” was either that of the researcher or that of the psychology department running the experiment. The participants were then asked to return the money, most of whom were happy to oblige. Group C was not asked to return the money and rated the researcher lowest out of any group. This outcome perhaps shows that the participants who had the most personal contact with the researcher were more likely to rate the researcher highly. Also, this contact and also the act of helping out another may have increased the students’ level of liking of the researcher, making them more willing to give them a high rating (Karbo, 2006; Burger & Caldwell, 2003). This study demonstrates it is clear that motivations to act kindly can be influenced by the justification that a person deserves to be treated well.

The Benjamin Franklin Effect is a simplistic explanation as to why people exhibit altruistic behaviour. However, theories such as the norm of reciprocity, better explain the laws of giving. Acts of kindness are influenced by a combination of vary factors unique to the individual, the group and the surrounding environment. It is when all of these factors are taken into account that a true understanding of the nature of kindness can be gained.

Word count: 1497

References

Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bergquist, S. R. (1975). New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language. New York, USA: Consolidation Book Publishers.

Burger, J. M. & Caldwell, D. F. (2003). The monetary effects of incentives and labelling on the foot-n-the-door effect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 235-241.

Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., Vera, C. (1997). The effects of time on reciprocity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 91-100.

Darley, J. M. & Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho” – A study of dispositional and situational variables in helping behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

Foehl, J. C. & Goldman, M. (1983). Increasing altruistic behaviour using compliance techniques. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 21-29.

Gueguen, N. & Jacob, C. (2001). Fund-raising on the web: The effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 4, 705-708.

Karbo, K. (2006). Friendship: The laws of attraction. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4195.html&fromMod=popular_relationships

Myers, D.G. (2004). Psychology (7^th ed.). Michigan, USA: Worth Publishers.

Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 12, 65-77.

Schneider, D. J. & Eustis, A. C. (1972). Effects of ingratiation motivation, target positiveness, and revealingness on self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 149-155.

Seiter, J. S. (2006). Ingratiation and Gratuity: The Effect of Complimenting Customers on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York, New York City, NY Online Retrieved 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p11563_index.html

Appendix A: Self Assessment
Theory:
Compared to my last blog, I feel my use of social psychological theory to support my research has greatly improved. I have used a variety of different terms to express, contribute to and define the assignment topic. The theory that I've used guided me in structure and how to best approach the question.

Research:

Again, compared to my last blog, I feel I have acknowledged many sources before selecting those most relevant. I found many journal articles and websites relating to the subject which gave me a reasonable amount of insight into what I could then discuss.

Written Expression:

I feel that my APA style of writing is fairly sound. I do sometimes have trouble simplifying what I'm trying to say but I believe I'm improving in this area. Overall, my ability to express my points through writing are satisfactory, however, the structure of my esay could perhaps be improved on.

Online Engagement:

I have made a bigger effort this term regarding online engagement. I have made use of the discussion board, made a poll to develop ideas related to the blog and commented on a one person's blog but responded to the postings of others on my own blog. I've also increased the number of my own postings this term. I have used blogging to develop ideas for my final blog and have also discussed tutorial topics to reflect on the issues over the last few weeks. Generally, I think my online engagement has been reasonable but could have been better.

Comments on the blogs of others:

Debbi's Blog - Aussie Citizenship Test

Explanation of the Benjamin Franklin Effect

If anything, it's giving and not receiving that makes us value a friend more. It was the American statesman and inventor Ben Franklin who first observed the paradox, now called the Ben Franklin Effect: "He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged." In a nutshell, while material favors don't even come close to the emotional talents of our friends, we still want to validate our personal judgment by investing special qualities in those we select to help.

In one classic study, participants won "contest money" from a researcher. Later the researcher approached some of them and explained he'd actually used his own money and had little left; could he have the money back? Most agreed. Later, the researchers found, those asked to do the favor rated the researcher more favorably than those not approached. Psychologists concur that the phenomenon stems from a desire to reconcile feeling and action, and to view our instincts and investments as correct: "Why am I going out of my way to help this guy? Well, he must be pretty nice." The fondness we feel toward our yoga class buddy will continue to grow if one day she asks for a ride home and we go out of our way to give it to her.

Taken from: psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4195.html&fromMod=popular_relationships

Today's tutorial

Hello! Well, I thought I'd just summarise some of the things that were discussed in today's tut. We were asked to think about what we would want for society if we were granted three wishes to change it. We were also asked to figure out our own solutions to these problems, so much fo the wishes! Lol, I thought this was a really good exercise though as it was very realistic in how we should solve the problem that are around us both on a small and large scale. My personal ideas were:

1. That we need to restructure what we as a society value. There's so much negativity being projected onto us by the media in terms of the way se should think and act. We're constantly being told what we could be and what we're not rather than what we are. I believe that if there was even just a little bit more positive advertising and if the media focused it's attention on constructive issues rather than destructive ones, society would function much better, both locally and globally. At the moment it seems that all we collectively care about is looking good, being rich and having every material possession we possibly can! So, basically, if we focused more on what we do have rather than what we don't have, people, generally would be much happier...

My solution to this problem is to instill confidence in others by setting an example. I think when people feel secure in who they are they want to give that feeling to others but you can only tell them so much. I've learned throughout my life that actions speak louder than words. As Ghandi said "be the change you want to see in the world" or something along those lines:-)

2. My second idea is that we should stop waiting around for others to lead us and take some friggin' initiative. This personally, really gets me annoyed! I hate laziness and it's really not that hard to just do it (it being anything and everything). I do however, think showing initiative and control in your life is linked to confidence, so this probably has to come first.

I guess my solution to this problem is again to set an example, but to just generally be nice to others. Random acts of kindness can be quite thrilling for both the kindness giver and the kindness receiver. So yeah, just do it! - hope Nike doesn't sue me.

3. My third one is just to treat others with respect. I reckon if we stopped caring about differences and just woke up to the fact that we're all living, breathing beings, everything would be a lot better. This isn't just respect to people, by the way, I mean, showing respect to every living thing. Humans think that because they're of greater intelligence that they're for some reason "better". But, do you think the earth really values us an higher than say, a caterpillar or a tree or perhaps even a speck of dust. Sorry, but no, lol. In fact, I think that our natural environment is one of the biggest things we need to fix because without it, how do we survive then? The harsh realisty is that we don't, and no nose job, flash car or Macca's drive-thru is gunna change that.

My solution to this, as above. But I can't force anyone to do anything.

Concept Map for Blog 2

Kindness Paradox

Discuss Benjamin Franklin's claim that "he that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged."

Thoughts and links:
I chose to do this topic for my second blog because I'm very interested in the concept of Karma but also what motivates us to do things for/to others. While this statement isn't exactly discussing Karma, it's definitely related in my opinion. I think that hate breeds hate and love breeds love and I'm reassured of this every single day. Acts of kindness, generally, are embraced positively, whereas harmful acts are not. These are just some general and beginning thoughts for now but I've found some links as well which I hope are of interest to you. Enjoy!

~The Benjamin Franklin Effect
-http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/ben_franklin_effect.htm
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_Effect
-http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4195.html&fromMod=popular_relationships

~Karma
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
-http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm

Concept Map: Prejudice, Stereotyping & Aggression

Blog 1: The Influence of Nature and Nurture on Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression

­­­­­­Abstract

To help understand the relationship between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression, ideas associated with both nature and nurture were explored. The aim of this essay was to explain how these concepts were connected. In doing this, the author began by discussing prejudice and continued thereafter with, stereotyping and aggression. Throughout the essay, references have been made to two key sources, The Australian Eye and Ghosts of Rwanda, both emphasising and depicting how these concepts are related. A concept map (see Appendix B) was also used to develop ideas.

Introduction

Prejudice, stereotyping and aggression appear to have both natural and environmental origins. While each of these concepts is closely associated with one another, it is important to understand the reasons why they exist when analysing their relationship.

Nature & Prejudice

The influence of nature on prejudice is salient. Jane Elliot’s experiment and documentary, Australian Eye (Cullen & Elliot, 2002), conveyed an informative message about prejudice and discrimination to the participants involved and was based primarily on eye colour, but also physical appearance. Brown-eyed participants were given “superiority” over blue-eyed participants and this was enforced by discrimination committed towards the blue-eyes by taking away the luxury of chairs and freedom of speech (Zimbardo, 1994). As a result of this study, many have realised, from the experience, what it is like to be victimised based on purely superficial reasoning by fellow human beings. Naturally, many people have pre-conceived biases, attitudes and prejudices that they are not necessarily aware of (Science Daily, 2005). For instance, fear of difference in terms of skin colour and facial features may have developed innately to ensure survival (Science Daily). As a result, prejudices towards certain racial groups are distinguished and maintained for no given reason other than that a race appears dissimilar to another (Science Daily). This segregation continues around the globe and to some extent, keeping in mind theories of natural history and evolution, probably always will.

Nurture & Prejudice

When prejudice becomes environmentally influenced however, it becomes unclear as to how much impact society, culture, friends and family have on beliefs, attitudes and prejudices. One way to investigate this concept is to examine the extent to which non-human animals are prejudiced. Animals do not appear to practice racism; however, closer exploration shows otherwise. Similarly to humans, chimpanzees hold prejudices towards others of their own species (Cole, 2007). One study showed that when an elder female chimpanzee was introduced to a group of chimpanzees in a different American state, she expressed her disgust for them through the use of sign language, calling them “black bugs” (Cole). This study emphasises that prejudices develop based on a combination of heredity and environmental experiences.

Nature & Stereotyping

As a result of prejudice, stereotypes often develop. The extent to why they occur again appears to be affected by natural and environmental influences. Stereotypes are generated by grouping people with similar traits or characteristics together and, unfortunately, often work against the stereotyped group (Zimbardo, 1994). In the human race, stereotypes may include black people, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities, certain religious groups and any group that is easy to categorise based on common characteristics (Correll, Park, Judd & Wittenbrink, 2002). Stereotypes occur naturally to help sort complex information into more simplified groups (Correll et al). Trees are generally green-leafed and have brown trunks and branches; books have a spine, a back and front cover and pages in between. Everything in the world, both living and non-living has a certain place, appearance and function (Bloom, 2001). In effect, knowledge of these physical and functional details about something helps us understand its use efficiently and, in theory, accurately (Bloom).

However, over-generalising can have repercussions and these consequences can be extremely detrimental to the categorised group. Australian Eye is again a good example of how stereotypes are formed based on common physical characteristics (Cullen & Elliot, 2002). Separating people by eye colour not only gave dominance to one group over the other, but also enforced each group’s collective traits (Cullen & Elliot). The brown-eyes were “confident”, “powerful” and “threatening” whereas the blue-eyes were “intimidated”, “confronted” and “weak” (Cullen & Elliot). When forcibly belittled, people experience increased levels of negative emotion towards their oppressors (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Adversely, this negativity is often mirrored by the more superior group, only perpetuating the cycle of prejudice and stereotyping (Baumeister & Bushman). The racial history between white and black people is a prime example of this. Because people of a specific race, white Anglo-Saxons for instance, are often raised in communities of primarily one dominant race, availability heuristics are formed (Baumeister & Bushman). This means that people become accustomed to what they consider normal and anything that differs is considered quite unusual, strange and in some cases, frightening. Applying this to the example of racism, whites may wrongly stereotype black people because of their differences.

Nurture & Stereotyping

While stereotypes are to a large extent naturally occurring, the degree to which they are socially influenced is also notable (Duncombe, 2007). In Western culture, people are often characterised into groups by colour, personality types, body types, occupations, social class and political preference among others (Duncombe). This grouping may sometimes be helpful and may assist like-minded people to achieve a common goal. Members of a weight-loss club, for example, may support each other in achieving their ideal physical bodies. However, the harmful effects of stereotyping often come into play when minority groups in society are portrayed and labelled negatively (Duncombe). As a result, stereotyping of this kind can lead to the active discrimination of individuals simply for fitting into a certain social category (Duncombe). Ageism, for example, is becoming increasingly present in many workplaces because of negative stereotypes related to a person’s age (Woolfe, 1998). Sexism is also a present issue in many different cultures, brought about by how males and females are expected to act within their environment (Russell, 1997). Racism is perhaps the most recognisable type of stereotyping throughout the world, with prejudice and discrimination occurring purely based on an individual’s ethnic and cultural background and nationality (Russell).

While these stereotypes are simply a few among many, they are each generated by similar themes. One is that the inequalities are produced by a constant struggle for power. In ageism, the young appear to have power over those who are older (Duncombe, 2007). Women are more often than not the inferior group in relation to sexism and generally, white people are more powerful than blacks (Duncombe). The other common theme is that humans and non-humans animals are afraid of what appears different (Duncombe). To some extent this fear is learned from experience but there is also a valid portion of which is innate (Duncombe). Regardless, this fear of difference can result in the oppression and discrimination of others through acts of aggression.

Nature & Aggression

The phenomenon of aggression can too be analysed from both a natural and an environmental perspective. Aggression obviously serves some natural purpose otherwise it would not exist (Lorenz, 1963). Animals may act aggressively to protect their young, others may fight territorially to ensure a place to live and thrive. In evolutionary terms, many of the reasons for aggression in nature ultimately come down to survival (Lorenz). Between-species, aggression may be present on both sides of the fight (Auk, 1975); the attacker, an eagle, may have to approach with caution if it were to prey on a snake, for example. Within-species, aggression also exists, often because of a need for dominance and power in a social hierarchy (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007). Two male baboons may cause serious injury to one another in a battle for their desired mate. The more powerful and dominant of the two animals will tend to achieve their goal provided that they are not presented with any further challengers (Encyclopædia Britannica). Humans, naturally, are not so different except for the fact that they have the ability to think critically and wisely about the consequences of their actions should they choose to (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

Nurture & Aggression

It is here that the impact of society and culture on aggression are of interest. In humans, aggressive behaviour towards others appears to be heavily influenced by many social factors. This behaviour may occur physically or verbally and seems to be highly correlated with negative emotions such as anger, frustration, fear, jealousy and general psychological distress (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). One study showed that narcissism and self-concept clarity were high predictors of an individual’s level of aggression (Stucke & Sporer). As a result, some may abuse drugs and alcohol, further aggravating this cycle of aggression and leading to additional destructive and maladaptive behaviour (Pihl & Peterson, 1995). Drugs and alcohol often lower inhibitions and contribute to a range of crimes including physical and sexual assault and domestic violence (Pihl & Peterson). Social theorists have also commented on the significance of modelling, a concept which describes how humans (and animals) mimic behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The most famous example of this idea is in an experiment conducted by Bandura in 1973 (Baumeister & Bushman). Children copied the violent behaviour, such as kicking, punching and slapping, that they saw performed by adults against a plastic doll called Bobo (Baumeister & Bushman). This showed that aggression is sometimes produced out of mere exposure.

The extreme of aggressive behaviour is unfortunately war and in some cases, genocide. Ghosts of Rwanda (2004), a documentary about the mass killing of more than 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, demonstrated the catastrophic capabilities of human beings. Driven by hate, propaganda and history, the Hutus tribe committed atrocious acts of torture, rape and murder against fellow Africans, simply for belonging to a different tribe, the Tutsis. This example of aggression is extreme, but common and understated to the point where most of the Western world has become desensitised to its reality (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). While aggression and violence is generally unfavourable in many cultures and criminals are punished, antisocial behaviour continues on a daily basis. Ghosts of Rwanda depicts this notion very accurately and illustrates that there is “such potential for good and such potential for evil in each one of us” (2004). War, and aggression, it seems are a part of the human race and whether driven by nature or nurture, appear inevitable.

The connection between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression is strong. While they are all influenced both naturally and environmentally, these three concepts also, in turn, influence each other. Prejudice may lead to stereotypes which may lead to aggression. No matter the order of their relationship however, they are intertwined nonetheless.

References

Barker, G. (Producer, writer & director). (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda [Motion picture]. (Available from Frontline for WBGH Educational Foundation, Boston).

Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bloom, H. (2001). Adventures for the mind: a cyberportal to science, art and history based on Howard Bloom’s books The Lucifer Principle and the Global Brain. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://howardbloom.net/

Cole, J. (2001). Beyond prejudice: Our connection to others, the earth and our future. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://www.beyondprejudice.com/connect.html

Cullen, P. (Producer & director). Elliot, J (Writer). (2002). The Australian Eye [Motion picture]. (Available from Angry Eye Productions, Australia).

Duncombe, S. (2007). [Review of the book Typecasting: On the arts & sciences of human inequality. New York: International Journal of Communication. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/133/65

Lorenz, K. (1963/1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt

Prejudice is hard-wired into the human brain, says ASU study. (2005, May 25). Retrieved September 19, 2007 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm

Russell, V. (1997). Racism and sexism – A collective struggle: A minority woman’s point of view. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/racesex/

Social behaviour in animals. (2007). Retrieved September 20, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-48603

Stucke, T, S. & Sporer, S, L. (2002). When a Grandiose Self-Image Is Threatened: Narcissism and Self-Concept Clarity as Predictors of Negative Emotions and Aggression Following Ego-Threat. Journal of Personality 70, 509-532. Abstract retrieved September 20, 2007 from Blackwell Synergy: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6494.05015

The Auk, 2, 584-585. (1975). Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v092n03/p0584-p0585.pdf

Woolfe, L. M. (1998). Ageism: An Introduction. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ageism.html

Zimbardo, P. G. (1992). Psychology and life. (13^th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Appendix A: Other links

Prejudice:

http://www.understandingprejudice.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

Stereotyping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Aggression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

Appendix B: Concept Map

Appendix C: Self-Assessment

Theory:
The theoretical literature I have found has been relevant to the structure of the essay. I have found social psychological theories that help to explain the concepts analysed and have only used them as necessary. There were times where I could have elaborated more on the theories presented, however I chose not to for the sake of focusing more intently on the development of the content of the essay.

Research:
I feel I have researched this topic well and found a wide range of resources arguing for both sides of the nature versus nurture debate. I have utilised this material to explore and support my own ideas and further conceptualise how prejudice, stereotyping and aggression link together.

Written Expression:
Throughout the essay I have attempted to make every sentence relevant to answering the question. I have used my own ideas and have presented them using appropriate language and with my own style of writing. I believe the essay flows quite smoothly in most places, however this could be improved upon. I think it’s generally quite easy and interesting to read as I have used a range of different examples to support my arguments. I have used APA style format for this essay.

Online Engagement:
My online engagement this semester has been satisfactory. I have commented on several students’ blog sites and have utilised my own blog as well when deciding on which blog topic to do. My contribution to the discussion board however, has been minimal, as has my use of multimedia. However, I endeavour to improve my level of online engagement in the coming weeks.

My comments on others' blogs (weeks 1-7):
http://fionabraybrooks.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
http://socialpsychologywheretobegin.blogspot.com/2007_08_19_archive.html
http://powellpsychology.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

(1 missing)