Four hundred twenty-five participants were recruited to participate in an online survey to determine the effects of counterfactual thinking. In order to test its impact, we conducted a study to see if the participant responses would change depending on what type of scenario we provided them with. In this study the participants’ where given one of two versions of a story in which a couple ends up dead. a taxi driver was rude to a couple and the other in which he was not. The results from these studies showed that male participants reported more blame than female participants. However, there was a significant main effect in rudeness between both conditions (driver rude and the neutral). We also found that male participants reported less “if …show more content…
According to Millie (2011) one of the most common actions in rudeness is based on the desire for revenge as a way for the victim to get even. As a result, people tend to strike back without making a conscious decision (Caldwell 1990). Evidence shows that when people experience rudeness in a direct way, their cognitive thinking is affected in tasks such as attention, creativity and decision-making (Porath & Erez 2007). In another study, Porath and Erez (2011,) examined how rudeness affects people’s counterfactual thinking. In this study, participants were given three identical tasks. What varied from each condition was the source and the forms of rudeness that they experienced from the experimenter or a stranger. For example, in the first group, the experimenter was rude to participants for being late to the experiment. In the second group, the participant encountered a stranger who threatened them before they arrived at the experiment. In the last group, the participants were asked to simply think about how they would have reacted to various types of rudeness. In each situation, the number of possible uses for a brick measured the participants’ performance. The results of this study concluded that participants who experienced rudeness, not only produced fewer ideas than those who did not experience rudeness but their ideas were also less diverse and less creative. …show more content…
According to Mills (2005), the relation between gender and impoliteness is important because it is the way that the participants view their gender identity and the way that they think others will judge them. In her study, Mills (2003) argues that women are more polite than men because they are expected to speak and act in a certain way in our society. On the other hand, she argues that men regard the world as a battlefield in which they tend to attack in order to achieve something or maintain their social status. Aydınoğlu (2013) conducted a study to find out if there were any gender differences when participants were presented with a scenario that showed impolite acts. In this study, participants were divided into two groups. Participants in the first group were given scenarios that showed impolite acts such as insults, threats and disapproval. In the second group, participants were given scenarios were impoliteness was showed in a form of sarcasm, teasing and complains. The results of this study concluded that men responded to impoliteness more offensively when they were shown acts of insults, threats and disapproval, while the women reflected more on the passive roles showed in the
In her article “But What Do You Mean” Deborah Tannen, claims that there is a huge difference in the style of communicating between men and women. Tannen breaks these down into seven different categories; apologies, criticism, thank-yous, fighting, praise, complaints, and jokes. With each of these she compares men to women by explaining the common misconceptions that each of the genders do. The different style of communication can cause some problems at the workplace and even affect the environment. The different styles of communication has been around forever and almost becomes a “ritual”(299). Tannen is effective with mainly women and not men. She is primarily successful with women due to the fact that her tone targets women, also the organization
At birth, we are a blank slate, regardless of gender. We are introduced into a world that wrongly believes gender defines who we are and what we shall be. Everything we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel impacts our minds and how we react. Therefore, behaviors between the sexes are learned from our interactions with the opposite sex and how we, as individuals, see our world. In the literary piece, The Distrust between the Sexes, Karen Horney asks this question: “…What special factors in human development lead to the discrepancy between expectations and fulfillment and what causes them to be of special significance in particular cases” (Horney)?
Aaron Devor in, “Becoming Members of Society: Learning the Social Meanings of Gender,” argues that gender is a performance. He supports his argument by recognizing how society rewards, tolerates or punishes conformity to or divergence from social norms (widely accepted behaviors set by society). If a male fails to fall into his expected characterization of dominance and aggression or a female fails to act out in passivity and submission, they are at high risk of societal punishment.
Both Deborah Blum’s The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over? and Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” challenges the concept of how gender behavior is socially constructed. Blum resides on the idea that gender behavior is developed mainly through adolescence and societal expectations of a gender. Based on reference from personal experiences to back her argument up, Blum explains that each individual develops their expected traits as they grow up, while she also claims that genes and testosterones also play a role into establishing the differentiation of gender behavior. Whereas, Devor focuses mainly on the idea that gender behavior is portrayed mainly among two different categories: masculinity and femininity,
Sometimes the greatest test of a theory is its longevity. Over time, some theories will be disproved, some will be modified, and some will become the basis for a whole new group of theories. Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance has stood up to challenge for over forty years, and is considered by many to be the single most important theory of social psychology. Though there have been modifications to the theory after many recreations and simulations of the original 1957 experiment, few have been able to really disqualify Festinger’s findings. It would be safe to say that many people don’t even have a full grasp of the incredible implications that Festinger’s research and experiments have towards the self-concept and behavior, myself not excluded. The actual definition of cognitive dissonance is almost too simple: an unpleasant feeling that arises from the contradiction of belief and action. Festinger, however, went on to find that dissonance would in fact change attitudes over time, helping people to justify their behavior when they know it is clearly wrong.
Sexism can have many negative impacts on the way women view themselves, research was conducted and it showed that when exposed to modern sexism, women expressed negative self-directed emotions. Modern sexism exposure also resulted in stereotypical self-presentation, where in contrast, women who were exposed to old-fashioned sexism displayed less self-defeating behavior. This research concluded that women were more likely to stand up and defend themselves against the old-fashioned gender stereotypes, but let the modern day expectations defeat them (Ellemers & Barreto, 2009).
Counterfactual thinking is part of everyday life because people are always thinking of past and future possibilities that may have happened or might happen. When people imagine the different possibilities it can cause them to feel upset or to have hope, which can motivate them to do or not to do something. Gopnik expresses that although counterfactuals are not reality it still affects all humans, when she states, “counterfactual thinking is pervasive in our everyday life and deeply affects our judgments, our decisions and our emotions” (Gopnik 164). Counterfactual thoughts start with our imagination and as a result, can change the future by triggering emotions and effecting beliefs. Gopnik explains an experiment completed by psychologists Daniel Kahnemanto to prove how exactly counterfactuals effect emotions. In the experiment, Mr. Tee and Mr. Crane both missed their 6:00 flights, but Mr. Crane watched his flight take off as he arrives and is much
In recent years, gender differences have already been one of the most controversial issues in various research. As an important communication tool of mankind, language is inevitably involved in controversies. However, Rachel Rafelman, a Canadian journalist and the author of “The Party Line” express her thought and opinion in her essay. She not only have some great points on what and how women and men are likely to talk, but also have different points on the talking environment. She comes up with facts and fit real and particle examples in her essay to make it understood. Whereas, Ronald Macaulay, a professor of linguistics and the author of “Sex Difference” uses words of novels to argue and promotes them as a cause of reinforce to men’s and women’s stereotypes in his essay. He argues through his whole as rebuttal and gives some examples to oppose the preconceived notion of sex differences. Over all, both Rafelman and Macaulay are the good writer but Rafelman is having upper to prove her essay better organized using her tones as per requirement.
David Grazian’s study builds on Quinn’s research on men and women's interactions and Grazian finds similar results as Quinn did in her study. In the study of Grazian the performance of both men and women was driven by both genders trying to prove that they are as the audience (society) says they should be. Society has men believing that all women want only one type of man, a masculine man and society has woman believing that men want women who are quite, pretty and live to make their man happy. Both parties in both studies have been fooled by society and they don’t realize or understand
Cognitive dissonance is a communication theory mostly used in the field of social psychology in providing a theoretical framework in dealing with various issues relating to psychology. The title provides us with the concept that cognitive is thinking while dissonance is the inconsistency or conflict brought about. Cognitive dissonance manifests when one holds two or more incompatible beliefs simultaneously. This theory has been used and applied in several disciplines including communication, due to its simplicity and straightforwardness. The theory is commonly applied in these dynamic fields since it replaces previous conditioning or reinforcement theories by viewing individuals as more purposeful decision makers striving to acquire a balance in their beliefs. Cognitions are chunks or bits of knowledge which can pertain to any variety of values, emotions or values. These cognations can be related to one another or they can also be completely independent from each other (Cooper, 06). For instance, one may like to eat junk food, but may also be trying to lose weight. The two cognitions are related to each other in tha...
Gender is not based on the sex of a person, but the cultural norms of that society. Gender roles are based on the norms and standards in different societies (Flores 2012). Each societies has their own set of social norms, and the identities that fit those norms. In the United States masculine roles are associated with strength, dominance, and aggression. Women in the US are expected to be more passive, nurturing and subordinate (Flores 2012). Gender roles not only assign traits to men and women they affect the way men and women are supposed to think and act. Women are held to a different set of rules than men are. For a woman to show anger in public is highly stigmatized, and looked down upon. When a man does it it's considered normal. When women are in the media they are given a different set of g...
Counterfactual thinking can be for imagining what could possibly happen in the future. Counterfactual thinking for the future is very unique in its own way because we are thinking ahead trying to see the different outcomes, and choosing the world that we want. This is something that we do in our everyday lives. You just do not notice it until now. In Alison Gopnik’s first lab experiment, she tested to see if a child can use their counterfactual thinking and see a problem before they even tried it. For Gopnik’s experiment, a child had to stack rings on top of a post, but one of the rings hole was taped over so that they could not fit it. The first test subject was a fifteen month old. The child’s method was to actually try it out before realizing that it would not fit. Obviously the ring would not fit but he kept going. Eventually, he gave up. An eighteen-month-old was the second test subject. When she saw the taped ring she knew what would happen if she tried. She did not even try to put the ring on. If children that are barely past a year old can counterfactually think into the future than so can adults, and they have before. “The most evolutionarily fundamental kind
Cognitive social psychology emerged in the mid-twentieth century as a critique of the dominant behaviourist movement and quickly became the main force behind the American school of Psychological Social Psychology. (Hollway, 2007). With its roots in mainstream psychology, cognitive social psychology has a primarily quantitative methodology, relying heavily on statistical methods in controlled conditions, and adheres to the hypothetico-deductive paradigm found in other sciences. The main focus of this form of social psychology is on how the individual behaves in controlled situations and this is examined through experiments and social psychometric data gathering.
Gender has a large influence on the way in which one is socialised, and thus, in my opinion how one conforms in social situations. The term ‘gender’ refers to the socially constructed differences between male and females in our society. All aspects of social life, including work and home life, as well as social interaction, is organised around the dimension of this difference. These differences over time have resulted in vast dissimilarities in the social behaviour between males and females. This gap in behaviour has resulted in a difference in conformity between males and females; with the latter being the more socially inclined and thus more compelled to conform when put in unclear social situations . This is partially due to females being relatively considerate of the opinions of others, while males are conditioned to be independent and self-confident. Ultimately, social media has the power to perpetuate and reinforce these
The level of dissonance a person is experiencing, if any, is the main objective of the theory. If there is a person who does not feel psychologically uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, the theory will not apply. Worldview 1 also includes a testable hypothesis, and Leon Festinger had three. The hypotheses for cognitive dissonance theory are mental mechanisms people use to ensure their actions and attitudes are synchronized (griffin, 2015, p. 202), and the objective experiment is to present evidence that will prove those hypotheses. The first hypothesis stated that selective dissonance prevents dissonance. “Not only do we tend to listen to opinions and select reading materials that are consistent with our existing beliefs, we usually choose to be with people who are like us. By taking care to “stick with our own kind” (Griffin, 2015, p. 202). Hypothesis two is post decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance. Everyone has tried to convince themselves, maybe after buying a car, that they have made the right decision. Three conditions heighten post decision dissonance: (1) the more important the issue, (2) the longer an individual delays in choosing between two equally attractive options, and (3) the greater the difficulty involved in reversing the decision once it’s been made. Hypothesis three, minimal Justification for action induces attitude