Proposition 8, The Musical.

Hilarious musical regarding Proposition 8 Banning gay marriage in California.....

Happiness Research!

Fascinating psychology study....

'Rocky Houston jury selection....'

This article discusses a trial in Tennesee where jurors are in the selection process for a case where two brothers are charged with killing a deputy and his ride along friend in a shootout two years ago. The judge has been dismissing jurors for being friends with people involved, having family commitments, having close ties with police officers (as one man killed was a deputy), etc. Since self-defense will be one of the main topics examined in this case, it is extremely important that the jurors be fair. The original pool of jurors were thrown out because out of the 600 people called for jury duty, no one was under age 40. The prosecuters and defense recently wanted to throw out another pool of jurors because no one was under 25, however, this time the judge said no. What should the attorneys be aware of when picking their jurors?

The attorneys should know to use research evidence to select or eliminate possible jurors. They should also use the theory of "voir dire" which is french for "to speak the truth." This theory means the questioning of jurors by both the defense and the prosecution and possibly the judge to determine whether or not a particular individual is able to deliver a "fair and impartial verdict."

What if different sides of the trial do not like a particular juror? In this situation, preemptory challenges can be used. This is a rule that allows both sides of a trial to reject a limited number of potential jurors who have unlikeable biases. They do not need to give reasons for rejecting said juror, and the number they can particularly reject is specified by the law.

The accused better hire a litigation and consulting firm specializing in scientific jury selection. These firms that have expanded and grown greatly in the past years use social science principles, market research, and advertisting strategies (focus groups and consumer profiles) to decide who will give favorable verdicts. These firms use community surveys (for example choosing a representative sample from a phone book, calling 300 people, and surveying their attitudes) and figure out which attitudes are prevalent towards issues related to the case. Then statistics are used to predict what the verdict would likely be. They also do mock trials with mock jurors that are paid, and use shadow juries that actually sits in the courtroom during the trial and helps the defense come up with strategies.These firms consist of teams of sociologists, attorneys, communication experts, marketing experts, and staff behavior psychologists. They are expensive, but can be worth it if they get good results.

Best of luck to both sides in this Tennesse trial in picking jurors, it is never easy, and we must all remember, that everyone has their very own set of biases. The good news for the accused, the trial will only take two weeks once the jurors finally get picked.

Did loneliness drive Britney crazy?

In the article, 'Why Britney loves a bad boy' the media takes some guesses at why Britney had a mental breakdown last year. It seems these days that everyone is fascinated by Britney's histrionics and her constant ups and downs. The article began with a picture and a caption underneath it saying 'Her loneliness was killing her....' and then Britney saying in the first paragraph that she "let bad people in" due to her loneliness. Can loneliness truly be that detrimental?

Loneliness is the painful feeling of wanting more human contact or connection than you have. Contrary to popular belief, celebrities can be lonely. There are few differences between people that characterize themselves as either lonely or not lonely and these people do not differ from others in terms of intelligence or attractiveness. Loneliness is born when people want more or more quality relationships than they have. In a world of glitz and glamour, where relationships can be very surface level, Britney must have let the loneliness get to her. Loneliness can even effect health. Lonely people cannot sleep as well as non lonely people, and they take longer to get better from sickness, stress, or injuries. Loneliness has been associated with cardiac death, high resting blood pressure, sleep deprivation, and impaired immune functioning. Loneliness can be a vicious cycle (from feeling discomfort around others, to having others begin to avoid you, to you avoiding others, to negative interpersonal behaviors to self-defeating thoughts) that can likely lead to depression which I believe led Britney to her mental breakdown after Kevin Federline, her husband, left her. Loneliness can be detrimental.

Britney's loneliness led her into a sea of bad relationships, which led her to her ultimate downfall. Sometimes it takes months of pulling oneself out of the situation and gaining some perspective. Congratulations to Britney, who appears to be pulling herself together after her breakdown, and released her new album. To stay on her successful path she should avoid loneliness in healthy ways (IE: bond with a new puppy, her children, rekindle old healthy relationships with friends!) and stay out of relationships with so called 'bad boys.'

Attachment, for the sake of the child.....

In 'Ideology gives way to nurturing for adoptive parents....' the article discusses a Michigan family who have raised six children and fostered more than seventy children in the past thirty-six years. They became foster parents because of the need, their own infertility struggles, and their ideology of being children of the 60's that set out to save the world. The mother States "it requires nurture to allow whatever nature has given them to blossom."

This is a very true statement. Children must form attachments as a crucial part of development. "Attachment-holding, responding-is what makes human beings, studies have shown that if we leave babies to 'cry it out,' their cortisol response is the same as if they had been stung by a jellyfish." Attachment is truly this crucial.

The attachment theory was derived by a social psychologist who watched during World War II how British parents said their children out of London to the country, where there would be less danger of bombs. During this time he identified three types of attachment which were later added to by Phillip Shaver and his colleagues (though these types of attachment chronicle adult relationships). Today there are four attachment styles based on two dimensions. The attachment theory classifies people into four attachment styles (secure, preoccupied, dismissing avoidant, and fearful avoidant) and is based on two dimensions (anxiety and avoidance).

Types of Attachment:

1. Secure Attachment (This type of attachment classifies people who are low on anxiety and low on avoidance. For example, they are trusting, can talk about their feelings, be supportive and supported, and generally have successful relationships)--If two children come from parents who respond to their needs they are likely to be classified as having 'secure attachments.'

2. Preoccupied Attachment(This type of anxious and ambivalent attachment classifies people who are low on avoidance but high on anxiety. For example, they really want to be close to people but are quite preoccupied with anxiety that their partners or people in their relationships will leave them. ) This can be seen for example in children whose parents frequently leave them, or in foster children who attach to their parents, are removed, return, etc.

3. Dismissing Avoidant Attachment (This type of attachment is when people have low anxiety but high avoidance. They view partners are unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring. ) This can be seen in children whose parents just don't care, and have given up on attachments.

4. Fearful avoidant attachment (This is a style of attachment in which people have both high anxiety and high avoidance. They have low opinions of themselves and keep others from getting close). This can happen when children are frequently disappointed by adults in their lives.

There are a variety of reasons why people attach in a myriad of ways, but children need healthy attachments. The article discusses how thirty five years ago foster parents were counseled not to attach to the children in the care....though it can be hard for foster parents to attach to the children and give them up, it is absolutely essential for the development of the child, and natural in any human relationships. One of the biggest risks for foster children is lack of attachment.

Kids want attachments where they know they are safe, secure, and protected....and this is what the Doyle's have offered children in their care for the past thirty-five years. Offering attachment parenting and love is a selfless gift because it is so absolutely essential. As one social worker offers in the article, "It is important to remember that children are like band-aids, they attach easily the first time or two, but the more they are moved, the less attached they become." No child, in this world, should be left without attachment, this is what allows children to thrive.

BET World AIDS Day special 'Are you Positive?' puts stereotype to the test...

Black Entertainment's special on AIDS showed profiles of four people that are called 'average' Americans. The show then asks the audience which two of the four age HIV positive? They talk about their lives, what they currently do, and they are shown on the television....at the end they say who is positive. The point of the show is that there is no way to tell who has HIV/AIDS. 

The show attempts to address the myth and stereotype that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease." In reality, this is not accurate as heterosexual women are currently the highest group of new infectees. 

A stereotype is an unjustifiable negative feeling or emotional response toward a group and its individual members. In this sense the stereotype that only HIV is a "gay disease" can be extremely unhealthy and detrimental to Americans, especially now heterosexual women. Why are people not concerned enough with HIV/AIDS which in America should be considered entirely preventable accept in the case of rape as condoms and birth control are relatively accessible? People just do not think it will happen to them. When presented with risk information (for example, as in, having sex without condoms with multiple partners or even one you do not know health information of is extremely risky!), people often engage in defensive processing (as in I won't get HIV! I know my boyfriend doesn't lie!) People are skeptical of information that is not consistent with their attitudes or preferences. Why are heterosexual women not taking better care of themselves? I speculate they just don't think it will happen to them. Also, people often let social aspects of their behavior influence their health decisions. For example, telling themselves 'I trust my partner, he doesn't need to wear a condom! He only sleeps with me, besides, condoms aren't cool, and I don't think he'll like me as much if I make him wear a condom' People often engage in risky behaviors in the name of impression management (keeping up their self-presentation)....not thinking about how much this can affect their HEALTH. HIV is a life long disease with no cure. No social aspect should outweigh the scary realities of HIV/AIDS.....afterall....it is certainly a disease that does not discriminate. 

"Public attitudes crucial to AIDS fight...."

This article discusses the struggle of the Chinese to accept and not discriminate against patients with HIV. The attitudes of the Chinese towards patients with AIDS in the past have been negative, leading patients to hide their HIV status. When Chinese President Hu Jintao shook hands with AIDS patients on World Aids Day (December 1st) in 2004, attitudes in China began to change towards these patients. It is crucial that the attitudes change because it is necessary for people with HIV to come forward and get treatment willingly, as this will help them, and protect other people from the disease.

Attitudes are global evaluations, our likes and dislikes, our lasting general evaluations of people, objects, or issues. For example, for everyone you know, you have a schema in your head for that person, what they're about, what they wear, etc and how you evaluate them (whether yo like or dislike them. Attitudes can be both positive and negative. Many times, attitudes are objectively measured by a scale called the Likert scale, which is a scale using a set of possible answers that has both extremes of feelings. The attitude accessibility is the degree to which an attitude is ready to become active in an individual's mind, guiding thoughts and behavior. If we wanted to get the best idea of the true attitudes in China, we would ask a random assortment of people to fill out Likert scales on their attitude towards HIV/AIDS and question them about the topic seeing how they reply, and how quickly they reply. 

Why is a bad attitude towards care and treatment of HIV patients a bad social phenomenon? Because it will spread if people are not treated. Why might this be? Because of one of the main functions of attitudes, the utilitarian function. The utilitarian function of attitudes serves to alert people to rewarding objects or situations that should be approached, and to alert people to costly/punishing situations that should be avoided. If the attitudes in China is so bad against HIV/AIDS, that people are socially punished and shunned for admitting to having AIDS you can bet your bottom dollar that these attitudes will keep people from getting treated, therefore making China much more at risk for spread of the epidemic. Props to the President of China for changing attitudes and stigmas against these patients to aid in the health of his country!

"Pro-Family" or "Pro-Prejudice?" That is the question...

This article is written by David Ambroz who took place in the Civil Rights March in LA this November. The march comes after a loss for GLBTQ rights in the election regarding Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California, and Arkansas measure disallow GLBTQ parents to foster or adopt (they are doing this by not allowing single parents to adopt, thereby eliminating GLBTQ parents since they do not recognize GLBTQ marriages in Arkansa). Arkansa citizens who are opposing GLBTQ parenting are calling themselves, "pro-family" while the author of this article is calling this movement exploiting children. There appears to be prejudice involved in these decisions as the Arkansas Supreme Court found itself that GLBTQ parents are no more or less fit to parent than heterosexual parents, "Children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well-adjusted as children of heterosexual parents; and that having gay parents doesn't increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, academic, gender identity, or any other sort of adjustment problems; nor do gay people engage in any more domestic violence or sexual abuse than heterosexual people..."

Why are these events happening?

To begin, the motivational perspective on prejudice can help one gain insight into the prejudices against GLBTQ parents. The motivational perspective on prejudice is that as humans, we engage in prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination to feel good about ourselves and the group that we come from. That the values of the heterosexual group are the correct values.

Another thought intertwined with the motivational perspective is the theory of ethnocentrism (defined as one viewing the nature of reality through the eye's of one's own culture"). That the "pro family" contingent of Arkansa are seeing GLBTQ parenting through their own eyes of their own heterosexual socialization and culture. That their own values are correct, that those of GLBTQ parents are not, and that they know what is best for these children. Ethnocentrism sees the creation of dual perception of people and phenomenons. For example, in this situation, that Heterosexual parents know the right way to parent, while homosexual parents do not. It is an us vs. them phenomenon that is just not right.

When it comes down to it, human nature is to favor whoever is in their ingroup. The social psychology theory of the minimal group paradigm holds true in this situation of heterosexual vs homosexual parenting. The minimal group paradigm is the theory that people are normally and naturally ready to divide the world into us vs them, and that people favor their ingroup (preferential treatment or more favorable attitudes toward people in one's own group). In this situation, heterosexual parents see themselves as the us and they see the homosexual parents as the them, rather then them all just being parents looking to do the best they can raising children.  People can bolster their self esteem due to the success of their ingroup according to the Social Identity Theory of Tajfel & Turner (1979), which leads to favoritism of the very groups we belong to. People derive self esteem from their own groups by 1. boosting the status of the ingroup (in the case of ridding Arkansa of GLBTQ parenting, getting rid of the right for this population to parent boosts the status of the pro-family, heterosexual parenting only group), 2. The ingroup basks in reflected glory (they see themselves as more correct, and evaluate themselves more positively), 3. Derogating outgroups (we took away their rights!) 

It is a constant battle of the human race between ingroups and outgroups blacks vs. whites, women vs. men, citizens vs. immigrants...the list could be endless. We must overcome. In conclusion, when it comes down to it....are these "Pro-Family" anti GLBTQ parenting advocates really thinking about the children? Or are they thinking about the success of their very own ingroup? Because when it comes down to the children, which this whole matter is about, I am pretty sure the thousands of foster children in the system really just want a safe, caring, loving home where they can grow up, be succesful, and live their lives in peace.

Social Workers...reducing cognitive dissonance?!

This article highlights the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, and the woman who began it. It discusses the social welfare problems of 1908, and the problems of 2008. In 1908 immigrants were pouring into neighborhoods who needed help with the culture shock and poverty of their new lives. Their needed to be professionals who could study and gain insight into these problems, and administer to the people. Today the school has 10,540 alumni who serve in social justice type organizations all over the globe. Today, in 2008, not much has changed, there still people in need all over this country, especially in light of the economic crisis. Interviewed in the article was Lindsay Allen, a first year social work student who made the change from pharmeceutical sales to social work. Why such a large scale change? Cognitive dissonance. She calls this period in America today, a time of "cognitive dissonance." Clearly, she has picked up some key social psychology vocabulary.


What does she mean by this current period in America being a time of cognitive dissonance? "When we behave in ways that are inconsistent withour attitudes this creates a negative state of dissonance." (Festinger, 1957) For Allen, I consider her choice to be because of her state of cognitive dissonance. Working for pharmeceutical sales will certainly make you a pretty penny, but can you actually "go to bed feeling you've made a little difference in the world that day." The answer seems to me to be a resounding no. Pharmeceutical companies are known to rip off consumers and dramatically over price the drugs they make. Anyone with a mind full of the morals of social justice, would certianly feel dissonance selling drugs for these companies.

Festinger has 3 Postulates to his theory of Cognitive Dissonance:
1. When attitudes contradict other attitudes or behaviors, this results in dissonance.
(Allen likely had morals of helping others and social justice, which were simply inconsistent in selling overpriced drugs to consumers who could not afford them)
2. Dissonance is an aversive state.
(How could Allen sit with this decision every day and night? )
3. Individuals desire to reduce dissonance to eliminate the aversive state.
(She reduced this state by altering her life plan, enrolling in social work school to pursue a career helping others)


His way of reducing this dissonance?
1. Change behavior.
2. Change attitude.
She changed her behavior and put her efforts into helping others as her career path. Dissonance reduced! She took the more difficult of the two ways to reduce dissonance, and instead of changing her attitudes, she changed her behavior. Certainly a noble endeavor she should be proud of!

In conclusion, all the best to Allen in her new endeavors, and props to the women who bravely began this prestegious program to train people to help others at the University of Chicago.

Wiggin murder put 'bystander effect' to the test...

This article chronicles the horrific death of Castleton State College instructor Linda Wiggin who was beaten to death in her home by her boyfriend. No one called the police until days after, even though the college students who lived with her likely heard the fight. At least one admits to hearing the fight, stating hearing repeated please of "help please" or "help police." Still, no one called the police. Family and friends are wondering why no one called the police, however, social psychologists are not all that surprised.

Why did this happen? Social psychologists have the answer: The bystander effect. The girl in the apartment likely felt that someone else in the apartment would call the police. Darley and Latane, who analyzed the bystander effect after the brutal New York City murder of a woman named Kitty Genovese who was murdered outside her apartment for thirty five minutes while her attacker left twice and returned each time, and still no one called the police even though people watched from their windows. In order to turn this effect around, and to analyze what it took to get people to help, these two psychologists came up with a five step plan of how to get people to help and the obstacles that go along with each step. (Latane & Darley, 1970)

Notice there is an emergency. The example will be the situation of the instructor above.

1. Notice that something is happening

Obstacles: Distraction. (pay attention to event downstairs) Self-Concerns. (I need to leave the home in a minute!)

2. Interpret event as an emergency.

Obstacles: Ambiguity. (Is she just upset or does she really need the police?) Relationship between attacker and victim. (It's her boyfriend, it can't be that bad!) Pluralistic ignorance (No one else seems to be too upset)

3. Take responsibility for providing help.

Obstacles: Diffiusion of responsibility. (Maybe someone else in the house will get the police)

4. Decide how to help.

Lack of competence: (I do not know how to handle this. Her boyfriend is much bigger than I am. Who should I call?)

5. Provide help.

Obstacles: Audience inhibition. (I'll look stupid if I call the police and there is no big deal!) Costs exceeds rewards. (If I call the police, and she was just exaggerating, will she kick me out of my apartment?!)

It is important to educate others on how to get help by reducing all of these obstacles. One needs to reduce distractions, assert that help is needed, assert that one person is responsible for getting the help, explain the kind of help and how to provide it, and not have an audience impact the amount of help. Once people understand these factors, the more helpful they were.

Perhaps if the college student in the house had taken a class in social psychology, she would not have ignored the cues to call the police, and save the instructors life.