Cognitive Social Psychology - Essay Example

174470 Cognitive social psychology is based on the perspective detailed by Heider and Gestalt to showcase the much needed common sense that is of paramount importance to understand self and relate it to the surrounding society. It explains how the cognitions are formed, stored, altered and give space to new and better cognitions. Twentieth century, considered to be 'century of blood' due to the group conflicts and escalations of violence leading to conflicts in places like Middle East, Africa, and most of the erstwhile British colonies, struggle for independence and political upheavals, fight for justice and liberty and sometimes communist and military rulers creating ruckus had been a challenge to mankind. These conflicts have academically necessitated the study of social psychology to the study of conflict by highlighting the inter-group activities like undercurrents in the society. Along with the societal change, social psychological research too changes and it is important to find the variables in the altering framework that might lead to conflict, prejudice, hatred, fellow-feeling, their increase or sometimes their reduction etc., because social psychology invariably reflects the inherent cultural and political processes that shape the collective relations. Study of the prejudiced personality comes from the deep-seated inflexibility of thought and attitude, rigidity in thinking terms of white and black and inability to see the colors in between the two. Authoritarian Personality theory and Dogmatic Personality theory account for this. In recent years, such deep-rooted theories of segregating people according to race, color, ethnicity and generalizing their psychology have been successfully challenged and the modern psychological concepts and methods of intergroup relations and individualized psychological approaches have become more and more pronounced. "Because they are fundamental to our cognitive architecture, cognitive social theorists argue that categories and stereotypes are difficult to alter and may sometimes be applied in an automatic and unreflexive manner. Research on so-called implicit prejudice has been described as one of the most important recent developments in the social psychology of intergroup processes" (book 1). Conventionally prejudice was measured by explicit and implicit expressions of bias and prejudice, although this perspective is not admired any more for the simple reason that prejudice need not be expressed all the time; but still could be part of a person's mental makeup. Also showing random photos or flashing images of people belonging to other races and cultures need not bring out the deep-seated anger or despise and according to aversive racism theory 'aversive racists consciously sympathizes with the victims of historical injustice and support racial equality'. The group-based approaches of Sherif and Tajfel are more connected with the mob mentality like that of Northern Ireland, where during a funeral procession two British soldiers were killed by the mourning mob and the event got telecasted showing the psychology behind the gory incident as graphic proof of mob's brutality as a result of compulsion to retaliate and friction between ingroup and outgroup members of the mob, braying for violence without any particular pattern while going through a very strong sense of group identity bordering to momentarily dominating social identity that might not linger for a long time in the same group, because in social psychology, stereotypes do not last for long. It is really important here to know the friction between individual psychology and collective psychology that might give way to organized struggles and not just mob fury. "Thus, one cannot begin to understand the emergence of political conflict in places such as Northern Ireland, Palestine and apartheid South Africa without also understanding how struggles to redefine identity have been nurtured by a growing sense of the illegitimacy and vulnerability of the social hierarchy" (book one). Prejudice which is called as the 'irrational' form or ordinary bias could not be referred to as senseless or baseless, but as a psychological phenomena that could be found in the traditional roots of aggression and repression. Discursive psychology sometimes connects with new racism, anti-racist political activism, brought out of ethnomethodological researches, exploring the ways of talking and language and how it is responsively oriented and how such attitudes of cross-cultural contacts are accounted for. Sometimes it is disturbing to know how much the language of race and prejudice is based on denial and deep-rooted hurt. The reason and rationality behind the individual's views could sometimes reflect the partial view of the society. Legitimisation of conflict in social philosophy against the 'serviceable others' could say a lot in intergroup relations through social representations. According to discursive psychologists like Potter and Wetherell, 'language is a precondition of much of what we call 'social psychology'', because psychologically individuals are shaped by linguistic resources connected with the culture that makes the entire picture of social reality, which in turn, connected with the prejudice, stereotyping and collective interests and attitudes. "A cardinal principle of discursive psychology is that our accounts of social reality are never transparent reflections of an already given state of affairs; rather, they actively construct the meaning of everyday relations in ways that serve varying social and political functions" (Book 1). Edwards and Potter have stated that discursive psychology 're-specifies and enriches rather than ignores the psychological domain.' "One obection to the discursive perspective is that it neglects the inner world of cognition and emotion on which psychologists have traditionally focused" (Book 1). Discursive aspect of psychology still faces the criticism that it is 'all talk' and has very little concern for the real happenings in the world and this was answered that it enriches psychological field and does not ignore psychological domain. Also instead of treating the psychological happenings as some mysterious processes inside the head, it brings it out as a reality with less mysterious evidences. Discursive psychologists have argued that social psychologists should be concerned with fundamental issues like everyday discourse in life of individuals and society. Contribution of discursive social psychology had been the understanding of social construction and legitimization of social conflicts while focusing on the language as a fundamental precondition and an ongoing process for the study of social psychology because language is the exhibiting part of brain activities that could show the happenings in all three tenses. Discussing the social psychological perspectives on conflict reduction, it is important to note that the recent politics, history, geography, sociology have shown extensive conflicts connected to the intergrouping all around the globe and naturally psychological perspectives on the intergrouping processes had been at work to bring parts of the world into utter turmoil. There is a great necessity in understanding that social psychology will be continuously affected by the historical and geographical leftovers of bygone eras. Somehow human society has shown reluctance and impossibility of shunning the historical baggage of guilt, hatred, divisive mentality, separatism, dominance, humility, vicious anguish and many of today's individual, societal and political decisions and happenings are based on these prejudices and extremely ancient, deep-rooted, antagonist events. No society has completely shown a complete psychological trend for change by totally detaching and divorcing itself from the past compulsions. But people, as a result of constant communication, have shown the upward mentality of making an effort to know one another despite being culturally, region-wise and background wise apart from one another. Mere interaction may not be sufficient here, though a non-prejudicial contact could be beneficial because it has the potential of altering the prejudice either by decreasing or increasing it enormously. But it does not guarantee that more understanding will come out of living in a diverse society. It could even be the other way round. But there exists an acquaintance potential against a long-controlled prejudice which might lead into lessoning a conflict by sheer knowledge and lessened ignorance about the other individual and his culture/background. Recognition of mutual differences in a practical way could lead either to more understanding or split the individuals and their groups further apart. There are positive signs found through research that show the application of 'we and us' instead of 'us and them'. This identity had been fragile, peace dependant, while resurgence of sub-group identities had been threatening this fragile peace, because contact hypothesis has its own limits that could be challenged any time. It is not only the Ireland, but could happen anywhere in any country and region as in North West of England (July 2001), where Asians, mainly Muslims instantaneously fell back on their country of origin, ethnicity, language, culture and religion, even though most of them were born and raised in Britain and created a great challenge to the monocultural British society, leaving an un-healing dent on it. In the discursive analysis one might cite the Islamophobia on one side, and the rhetoric of allegiance to Islam religion as above British nationality on another side and here the contact hypothesis has obviously failed. Errors made by a prejudiced mind could lead to various kinds of conflicts, and the social psychology of prejudice problematic prevails. "They need to consider how to transform not only the cognitive and emotional reactions of individuals but also the collective practices used by communities to define and treat others. These practices generate shared constructions of social reality that are more complicated, subtle and contradictory than simple measures of prejudice can possibly register, constructions that are not easily reduced to the 'faulty' thoughts or feelings of individuals" (book 1). Naturally a mixed history has to create a mixed social psychology with the potential for conflict and aggressive behavior at wrong times, and co-operation at other times. Prevailing of peace at other times can never be mistaken as permanent, because the simmering of intergroup conflicts perennially exists. Social psychology has always tried to grapple with questions of individual identity within the societal conflicts and dimensions of ethnicity, class and gender, but not always very successfully. Within the European Union itself there are many diverse groups and research priorities have taken note of these groups. Within the frame work of United Kingdom there are many subgroups that are divided by region, color, race, and mentality. It is important to know how far the psychological dualism could sustain itself and flourish in opposition to the globalised individuality. Social Identity Theory dwells on individual's relationship with the social psychology prevailing around him in the society, affected by the cultural, economic, regional relationships of the groups combined. "At its core, SIT proposes that the way in which people identify with social categories (i.e. groups of various degrees of scale) shapes how they perceive the immediate social context and how they are prepared to act within that perceived context. It also holds that contrasts between social categories serve an important function" (book 2). It is said that intergroup relations heighten attachment, cohesiveness, cooperation and morale within the group while competing with the other groups. Intergroup behavior has enormous social context as its influence is felt throughout in the society, even though pure forms of such relationships do not exist very often. "It can be assumed, in accordance with our common experience, that the more intense is an intergroup conflict, the more likely it is that the individuals who are members of the opposing groups will behave toward each other as a function of their respective group memberships, rather than in terms of their individual characteristics or interindividual relationships" (book 2). This will give rise to social categorization and intergroup discrimination because group interests always do not coincide with the societal interests and intergrouup behavior, if experimented provide initial stimulus for certain hypothesis about the conflicts. There could be a conflict of interest while relating the individual to society because individual's place in the society could depend on his own perception of it. From the perspective of individual psychological standpoint, society could be very different and highly diverse as each individual relates to it in his own way. "Social groups or categories and the membership of them are associated with positive or negative value connotations. Hence, social identity may be positive or negative according to the evaluations (which tend to be socially consensual, either within or across groups) of those groups that contribute to an individual's social identity" (book 2). Evaluation of one group need not be the same as the other group sees it. Usually it is based on favorable comparisons within groups. It is important to know the group's influence over the individual and vice versa. "Similarity, proximity, and situational salience are among the variables that determine out-group comparability, and pressures toward in-group distinctiveness should increase as a function of this comparability" (book 2). Social hierarchies and social changes too are important here. There could be rigid individual identity, sub-group identity that could refuse to merge with societal identity, difference of status, objectivity and subjectivity of the conflicts influencing the pattern. It also depends on positive individualistic self-esteem, connected negative and positive values of group membership, relevance of outgroup, relative importance of skin color or language. Social competition could be positive struggle as long as it is not vicious. Main question is the perspective of humanity in individual members of the society. Also equally important are the difference between bigotry and prejudice and the connected element of insanity by depersonalization and dehumanization. Discursive psychology does not depend upon psychological language; instead they have created own tools of research. Discursive approach of attribution is different and it is neither a method nor a technique. In a way it is an offshoot of the more traditional Cognitive Social Psychology, even though it is not all-enveloping like the other. Still, it is a necessary branch and it has extended the social psychology to new vistas. Social psychology sometimes could be too general, whereas Discursive Psychology could be particular. But SP is closer to the general, theoretical psychology than DP. Both serve the same field even though SP is conventionally adjudged as better and farther-reaching than DP. Read More