Class Notes (835,638)
Canada (509,305)
Sociology (3,242)
Lecture

Social Psych Lectures.docx

41 Pages
104 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology
Course
Sociology 2234E
Professor
Doug Hazlewood
Semester
Fall

Description
Conceptual Barriers to the Dvlpmnt’ of Social Psych  Conceptual Barriers to the Development of Social Psychology  - epistemology: a way of understanding something and that way of understanding something is informed by fundamental views about what constitutes valid knowledge  - nominalism: a way of explaining and thinking about social processes with reference to the intentions of individuals ; karl marx (looking at capitalism and the effects on individuals) is more of a nominalist -> looking at the individual …. Dealing with nominalism in social psych  - in terms of social reality, social reality is viewed as a product of human consciousness for ex. symbols (symbolic interaction)  - nominalists view persons as actors  - qualitative ; understand reality occurs in social interactions; want to understand persons points of views on things   - Realism: ways of explaining and thinking of social processes without reference to individual actors with reference to natural processes -> looking at social structure  - for realism, social reality is not a product of human consciousness  - social reality has its own properties; social realities occur outside of the individual  - view persons as reactors ; we respond to things, we are an outcome of social structure  - look at large data sets, fixed social sets things that don’t change over time   - from nomalist point of view, interaction is important and no voices can be silent in order for meaning to be shared  - social psych requires that we view social reality both in terms of individual intentions and external social processes  - mutual respect is cooperation among equals to bring about justice; equal power   - major problem: power differences upset what is heard  - how can power differentials be suspended in order to allow for dialogue in mutual respect   Prehistory of social psychology: two periods of cultural history th th  1) Pre-enlightment period; 9 -15 century  - marked by a time of freudilism  - what a person was at this time was simply what you are, you were born into it, people were just a function of social structure  - there was no person, just social categories  - this was a period of over socialization  - this period of history was dominated by perceptual realism and ethical realism   2)Englightenment - 18 thcentury with roots in the mid 17 thcentury  - tremendous intellectual development  - complete individualism  - period of under socialization  - individual didn’t care about what society had to say; no respect for society unless it benefited themselves in someway  - many long standing beliefs were being viewed as irrational, and standing in the way of human progress and human development  - time of French revolution and industrial revolution  th  3) Romantic conservative reaction to the enlightenment- late 18 century early 19 th  - early sociology emerged during this time as a response to the enlightenment  - these conservatives thought these enlightenment ideas to be threatening to social cohesion  - basically was just re-institutionalizing enlightenment ideologies   Auguste Compte  - one of the first sociologists to come forth with criticisms towards the enlightenment  - goal was to resurrect the enlightenment ideologies -> re-institutionalize  - positive philosophy, or what he called social physics, or sociology  - he purported that his research program was in linged what was going on in the hard scientists  - moulding his sociology in what he sees in the hard sciences  - purposes the law of 3 stages:  - natural progression to societal development, society follows a system of natural laws  - theological, metaphysical, positivistic  - he doesn’t want any radical social evil  - intellectual disorder was the pre-emanate of all social disorder-> he is a realist  - was in favour of silencing the voice of the individual  - key concern was the establishment of consensus in society;  Comte’s Thoery of Human Nature: Tableau Cerebral  - first theory of socialization  - how we bring about consensus in the society, and silence the voice of the individual (socialization and human development are not the same thing)  - didn’t place a lot of emphasis on the individual in this theory; but did see them as a source of energy through progression through those 3 stages  - human beings have intelligence (we think), emotions/affect (we feel) and they act (we do)  - comte is a realist In both a realistic and ethical sense  - ethically realist because of this notion that hes just trying to convince people that what he’s saying is true exam - why 1 of the 4 is a realist ,and why one is a nomalist - know nomalism and realism Emile Durkheim - re-establishing consensus in society - didn’t think radical or political could generate this consensus - Durkheim is against radical , is looking at Comte’s work and evaluating it - Shared comte’s view that humans are innately egoistic - This innate egoism makes collective life very chaotic, said we need to control it - Thought individuals were too weak to control innate egoism on their own, humans need to be controlled - Didn’t buy into tableau cerebral for controlling the individual - Wanted to separate philosophy from sociology - Looks at regulation in social structure - Was able to explain rates of suicide better than psychologists ; did so by ignoring the individual, looked at social structure - The environment acts on people, conceptual realism - His unit of analysis is social facts: ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that are external to the individual and have the power of constraint over the individuals (comte’s was the family) - Has material social facts (DOL, church and the state) and non material social facts (morality, collective conscience, collective representations, social currents, and religion) Durkheim’s Theory of Socialization we need both morality and external constraint in order to be free - morality is a non material social fact - morality dictates the roles for correct procedure - morality=following of rules – doesn’t have anything to do with individual consciousness, it is about conformity to culturally sanctioned norms and values - morality is not a property of the person b/c it is a social fact, it acts on the person - said persons are reactors-> no nominalism - Durkheim is taking a biosocial position, taking a medical approach to social problems - the cult of individual was the answer to egoism in organic solidarity - free meaning freedom from your egoistic impulses - Organic solidarity cult of the individual  the only time he gives people their own power (as opposed to just re-actors from the society)  Individualism is the moral system under conditions of organic solidarity/modern society  Said this cult of the individual is only a bandaid, not sufficient enough to solve the problem  Long-term Solution  1 early childhood and socialization  2 education  these mechanisms are Durkheims means of social reforms, designed to control the thoughts and actions of people  this is where individuals learn roles, rules, norms, and moral tools in order to function in society  through moral tools we learn discipline, rules and norms (learn how to be socialized) :  discipline  learning not to differentiate b/w is and ought; rules are the way they are b/c thats the way they ought to be that way  learning obedience through society and its moral system  we can conclude he is a realist   Karl Marx  He is revolutionary, he wants complete radical change  His focus is on exploitive and alienating effects of modern capitalist practices  He did not find disorder from the revolutions as a problem, his problem was with the oppressive effects that emerged out of these processes  Revolution is his focus not reform  Marx; “circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances” (more nominalist side)  Persons can effect the environment just as environment can effect persons the call to revolution  This is the dialectical proposition/model  Comte; “the social makes people, people do not create the social world” (more realist)  One way causal model  These two are opposing theoretical orientations  Marx does not want to separate social value from social facts  His ideology is political and normative-ethical (he is making claims about what ought to be the case, which has to be apart of what socialism is)  Does Marx think about social facts the same way as Durkheim?  Durkheim treats social facts as things that are external to the individual… but Marx adds that individuals can also act back onto those norms and values and reconstruct them; reconstruct social structure  Marx identifies a number of economic structures that make up the capitalist system  Capitalist system: the social structural arrangement b/w the owners of the means of production (buguargies) and the workers labourers (proletariat); capitalism it is the product of the social relationship b/w those who buy labour power and those who sell labour power  Enconomic structures: identifies 5  Commodities: things that are produced through the production process  Capital: the social relationship b/w those who buy labour power and those who sell labour power; through its agent (the bourguargies) exploits the worker/labourer  Private property: the private ownership of the means of production by the bourguagies  DOL: critical of the DOL under capitalism because it is very highly specialzed, isolating, and non communal (no ones working together)  Social class: the two classed; proletariat and bourgeoisie  These 5 economic structures are relational because they are the products and thoughts and actions of persons  What explains how something persons produce through their own actions can become those things that are external to and coerce about them?  Process of reification  First persons produce something (those 5 structures), then they forget that they produced it and thirdly, they let those things control them  In consequence they feel they have no means to change them  Why was revolution rather than reform necessary for marx?  5 economic structures stand in contrast to what Marx calls Human beings basic nature  human beings are inherently productive, and we produce things in order to survive  argues that human beings are social beings  claims that capitalist society through these 5  economic structures, set up a series of blockades; these serve to separate persons from the productive process itself, persons from the products they produce, persons from other persons, and persons from themselves  alienation is the erosion of human beings basic nature, it is the erosion of the interpersonal bonds between and amoung persons, and between persons and the products we produce  describes the complete undoing from the natural production process, it is the results from capitalisms 2 class system  labours produce naturally for themselves, and unnaturally for the capitalists  he has 2 major concerns  the structure of capatlism (the 5 things)  the emancipation of persons from the oppressive structures of capitalism  Marx’s emancipation  Means freedom from the detrimental alienating effects of this 2 class system and freedom to produce naturally   People (the workers) need to act in collaborative ways collectively in order to bring about the change of capitalism  Said this would be a class free society  Said to utilize technology in a way that’s fair  He essentially has 2 faces: on the one hand he is talking about human potential (his earlier work) and another hand talking about large economic social structures (later work) Weber  Was critical of Marx’s claims of the necessity of radical social change  believed radical revolutionary change would bring about more problems  the capitalist system was still the best, and that it should be maintained as it was  he advocated for the coordination of knowledge  bringing together different disciplines  developed historical sociology  seeks to develop a set of clearly defined concepts or “ideal types” with which to execute a causal analysis of historical events  weber was of the view that facts and value should be separated (Marx said they shouldn’t)  should be no ethical realism, no ethical normalism  values have no place, you just need to get the facts  information is a product of a process of communication  he is purposing a new unit of analysis known as social action  says the world is full of social actions in which human beings are attempting to coordinate their actions with other human beings by attempting to understand the meaning states of the other  action (adequate causality) motivated by willful intentional behaviour (not necessarily agentic thought and action-> agentic meaning reflecting on whether you want something or not)  action is constituted by individuals who have attached subjective meanings to their behaviours and actions- not talking about random events  the objective of sociology is to interpret action in terms of its subjective meanings (your explanation for why you did something)  if no one can relate to your action then he did not consider it an action  his theory is missing a cognitive basis for human being  How might we understand Weber’s action theory in reference to other aspects of his work?  “ideal type” is a conceptual tool used to study some social phenomenon  what defines this conceptual tool is a result of the investigators interests and orientation  heuristic devices: ex. you have an ideal type partner, but in reality you will never find the person who is all these things. But your ideal type is a heuristic type because you know you will never find that exact mirror image of that  ideal types constitutes the building blocks for theory construction  he proposes value revelance: he can maintain some level of objectivity; his biases will stop at the ideal type but wont influence  researchers need to be aware their biases are influencing their ideal types  objectivity develops across different researchers  can’t make claims about what ought to be the case but what is the case  What is the thing that Weber shares in his theory with social psychology?  Weber’s theory of social action  things we like about weber:  1. his action theory: we can only understand action in terms of subjective meaning that people have for their actions (the chalk thing)  he wants to understand what motivates people to do things (but he does not have a cognitive basis)  for weber social actions takes place in a complex web of social interactions where human beings are trying to understand other humans beings (he is explaining action in terms of those subjective means that connect people)  emphasized the coordination of knowledge; wanted to put history and sociology together  we liked his notions of multiple causality and adequate causality  multiple causality is interrelationships b/w and among social phenomenon  adequate causality is that we must speak in probabilistic terms… not in definitive terms  we like how he examinee social phenomenon as both a function of group functions and individual intentions  we like how he examines things that are external to the individual but the individual can do something about it (for ex. the law, it effects people and people can also seek to act and change laws)  we like how Weber said we need to upfront about out bias’s  Problems with Weber:  argued for value free sociology but was unsuccessful in actually applying it himself  his political conclusions were hidden by his research, wasn’t upfront about his own bias’s  Durkheim and comte would follow one direction causality (if x then y)  Weber works with multiple causality: interrlations b/w and among various social factors… but his goal would be to identify what they are and include them in his model  Adequate causality: if x then there is a good chance that y will occur  Can only speak in probable words from Weber’s view  Says ideal types can be dynamic, they can change over time because peoples relationships with people, social structure, etc can all change  What is the relationship b/w multiple causality and adequate causality?  Adequate causality the rules that can be used in multiple causality – it specifies the rules of probabilistic terms  Value relevance: must inform others of biases  Anyone who works with someone elses ideal type, should get the same results, but in fact they don’t  neither sociology or psychology can explain everything about the human condition  Sociology vs. Psychology  Why smoke? Sociology Psychology - peer pressure  - insecure - neurotic  These need to be coordinated with one another  Social psychology  We are always bio psycho social beings all time Scientific Foundations of Social Psych 9/18/2013 1:53:00 PM - language and other symbols provide a shared definition of a situation that allows us to perceive and interpret the world in a common way - Social psychologists have classified the behaviour they study into 3 basic areas: 1) the influence of social factors on the individual 2) social interaction b/w and among individuals 3) group processes - August Comte interests and contributions reflect the impact of social disorder surrounding him, as well as the influence of an emerging academic emphasis on scientific approaches to solving problems - he abonded traditional explanations that were rooted in religious beliefs and philisohpical motions - Charles Cooley came out with one of the most influential books, which presented the idea that there is an inseperable link b/w self and society; a person can be both the subject that perceives thw world and the object that is being perceived - George Mead defined social psych as the study of “the activity or behaviour of the individual as it lies within the social process” - Mead stress the important of symbolic meanings – his theory came to be known as symbolic interactionism - operationalization the translation of abstract conepts into concrete, measurable varibales - triangulation where researchers are able to use more than one research method for conducting a study - mundane realism real life experience that subjects feel outside the laboratory - experimental realism try to design a believeable experiment - hawthorne effect awareness of the effects that an experiment may itself produce 9/18/2013 1:53:00 PM Science of Methodology  3 sources of bias we need to be aware of when conduction research  1. Subject effects bias  2. Operationalization bias  3. Experimenter bias  a bias that is outside of these but still needs to be dealt with: a problem of the volunteer subject  Rosenthal and Rosnow  They reviewed a body of lit in the science of behaviour  Wanted to see what was going on in terms of who there particpants were at the time  They said a problem is that the majority of research participants are sophmores  These sophomore students are enroll in psych courses, and are participating b/c they are required to do so  High degree of self-selection and investigator-selection  This research selection process can greatly influence the results: cannot generalize it to the population  Can run into theoretical problems  Some of you theoretical assertions may be falsely shown to be true  Or some of the theoretical assertions could be true but have been shown to be false  Have to be careful when making claims of self-selection and investigator-selection on how they have an effect on your results  b/c we cant be sure about self-selection/investigator- selection, there is external circumstances and internal characteristics (used as control variables)  say we should use these 2 and we can determine if the self-selection/investigator selection is affecting the results  these 2 things function to either draw in or keep out research participants  What are the external circumstances and internal characteristics that function to keep in or draw out research participants?  Participating in research is a non random event b/c of the external circumstances and internal characteristics  If we except that volunteering is a non random event, we need to identify those factors that make it non random  6 external circumstances: 1. having only a relative be a less attractive alternative to volunteering  ex. giving some 10$ for participating, the less attractive alternative is not receiving the 10$  increasing the intensity of the request to volunteer  ex. in addition to posting, you might also arrange with a proff and speak to the students  increasing the perception that others in a similar situation would volunteer  increasing acquaintance ship with the perceived stregivate and liking for the experimenter  having greater intrinsic interest in the subject matter being investigated  increasing the subjective probability of being favorably evaluated or not unfavorably evaluated by the experimenter  one sided distribution of information (you won’t learn anything about the investigator and participant can feel vulnerable because of that)  people who are more likely to participate:  people with higher education, higher occupational status, higher need for approval*, higher intelligence*, and lower authoritarianism  there is some confidence that these factors influence the likelihood of participation  more likely to participate if they are more arousal seeking*, more unconventional*, first born child and if you are younger  with these there is less confidence  * are not readily understood  the degree of influence for each of these internal characteristics can be expected to vary based on a number of factors:  how are they operationalized  disagreement on what constitutes a valid measure  internal characteristics might be founded with each other  a number of internal characteristics are demographic characteristics: need variables that the database also has 9/18/2013 1:53:00 PM Subject effects bias: Orne (1969)  Special methodological problems when dealing with human subjects  This is because humans think and reflect  And we are in a constant state of trying to make sense of our environment or interpret our surroundings  In addition to being active and wanting to reflect on our environment, we also bring things in with us into that experimental encounter (past histories, biographies)  The technique of deception: a tool that researchers use to mask the true purpose of the investigation  Why do we bother with deception?  Used to control for the effects of human beings inquisitive tendencies  A number of investigators argue that even if they employ deception, the research subjects are never neutral towards an experiment  This is the case because people bring in past histories and biographies  Researchers are generally really confident that they will find what it is that they want to  Subjects are active sentient beings who respond to in the moment stimuli, not as isolated events  Don’t view the situation as an isolated event, it is apart of that biographical and historical process  Cant separate who the person is as his or her role as a subject because they bring all that with them  Research subjects are people who are familiar with the research process, its purposes, themes and expected findings (students) Summary:  The response given to any environmental stimuli is a function of 2 things:  1. A function of who the person or subject is, and by that we mean his/her past history, life experiences, biography  2. The knowledge that the research subject has of the experimental process, its purpose, aims and expected findings; this will always be a source of concern and having an impact on the results  the results you obtain are likely compounded with these 2 points Subject Effects Bias cont.: It’s two dimensions  the 2 dimensions A and B in hand-out  what we have described thus far as subject effect bias is in part an outcome of a body of cues, that Orne refers to as those demand characteristics of an experiment  demand characteristics provide partial content for subject effects bias  conent: ideas we have about things  the 6 cues function to change our ideas about things (from A) Experimenter Bias  both subject effect bias and experimenter bias can be compounded with the results of a study  Orne argues experimenter bias can be understood in terms of subtle but systematic differences in the 5 listed in the handout:  1. Treatment of subjects: There responses may change in comparison to how they are treated  subject effects bias and experimenter bias are analytically distinct but not detached  subject effects bias depends on the perception of the subject, and experimenter bias is routed in the motives of the experimenter  always need to be aware of these things  Solutions for experimenter bias:  Experiment should never be conducted by those who create the experiment  The experimenter should never be informed about the cause or reason for the experiment Beyond experimenter bias: psychosocial effects  Experimenters who differ along these personal and social dimensions (in hand out), they will tend to obtain different responses from their research subjects variations ex. an experimenter who is very anxious in comparison to someone who is relaxed Operationalization Bias  Operationalization is the process of putting a conceptual definition into measurable form  Ex. we wanted to measure human development; we might first have to look into literature to see how its been conceptualized by other researchers, and need to clarify the definition what constitutes it and what doesn’t  Then you need to put it into measurable form: questions that will allow you to measure it, and those questions might tap diff dimensions on what you mean  the process of operationalization itself is a form of bias b/c we actively create what we observe  this is the reason why we can’t be objectives so we have to be able to deal with these biases Why cant we be objective?  Because there is always going to be disagreement on how to measure variables How might we deal with operationalization bias?  Best thing we can hope for is inter-subjective agreement  Model B: Objective facts + inter-subjective agreement= objectivity (this allows people to freely negotiate the meaning of something)   there is a process  Model A: Object facts= objectivity but we say this is not true so we create model B.   There is no process it is just the way it is 9/18/2013 1:53:00 PM Theories and Social Psychology  orientations that have implications for how we do social psychology  we want to see if there is any ideas in these theories that we do like or don’t like  The 4 theories we will discuss (only frustration-aggression is a theory, the other 3 are orientations, they don’t give us a formalistic theory about something)  Frustration-Aggression Theory  Reinforcement Theory  The “Gestalt” Orientation  The Psychoanalytic Orientation  We can make the following general deduction:  Following general claim about meaning: meaning can never be achieved once and for all, b/c meaning according to our working definition of social psychology is part of an ongoing process due to inter-subjective agreement  Need to take a second look of operationalization bias:  The immaturity of Social Psychology  Those 3 Orientations: only go so far to only loosely identify varibales that should be considered, but they don’t denote deductive systems where clearly  They are middle-range theories b/c it does seem to contain some elements that would make it worthy of being called a theory ex. will state some hypotheses and suggest there is a relationship among variables and claims to do so based on certain laws  What a theory is: an organized set of relationships among laws  The immaturity of social psychology is that its based on natural sciences that are derived from laws  Fustration-Aggression Theory  If you are frustrated by your inability to get something you want you are going to lash out, and it will typically be against someone or something weaker than you  The target of this aggression/action can be against yourself ex. suicide or lash out against others ex. slavery, the holocaust  When you are frustrated the pressure will build up and eventually you need to release it- a threshold point on which you can’t stand it anymore  The general deduction is that if the social word doesn’t give you want you want you are going to regress  4 main constructs to this theory and a series of intertwined hypothesis:  1. Frustration: when your attempts at getting something you want are interfered with you become frustrated  2. Aggression: act that injure yourself or others  3. Inhibition: the tendency to control or prevent aggression based on the anticipation of punishment  4. Displacement: the tendency to regress against sources other than the source of the frustration  these are interrelated based on 6 hypthesis:  1) the amounts of frustration is a function of 3 things  the function of the strength of your desire to achieve your original goal  the degree of interference  the number of times you experience the interference  2) The strength of the tendency to aggress varies directly with the amount of frustration  3) The strongest intention is to aggress against the perceived source of the frustration  4) the strength of the inhibition varies directly with the perceived punishment that could occur  5) The experience of inhibition is an additional source of frustration  6) there is a strong tendency to displace (get rid of it) aggression b/c the experience of aggression is satisfying  Problems with Frustration-Aggression Theory  No explicit reference to how frustration, aggression and interference are operationalized  Theory doesn’t account for time, doesn’t explain delays or when people will aggress  Theory doesn’t take into account behavioural characteristics of a person ex. frustration for some people may not be frustration for others  Supposed logical relationship among its constructs may be problematic  Plenty of evidence to suggest that when people are confronted with a frustrated situation they may deal with it in different non- aggressive ways  In conclusion, any theory that explicitly states its assumptions, explains logical relationships among the constructs , and provides clearly defined operationalized definitions it is ready to be tested democratically--> researchers can always use theories and see if they get similar results  Reinforcement Theory  Sometimes called learning theory  Behaviourism, Associationism, hedonism
More Less

Related notes for Sociology 2234E

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit