AUTHOR: Pamela Paul
PUBLICATION NAME: The New york Times
DATE OF PUBLICATION: September 10,2010
SUMMARY: Being the only child does not affect their interpersonal skills. In fact, they are as skillful as children with sibling according to Dr. Downey and Dr. Bobbitt-Zeher. They did some research in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolesent Health on 13,466 students from 7th grade all the way to 12th grade. By finding out the total average nuber of friends each individual students have and found out that the total number of friends the children with sibling are the same as the children without sibling.
The only child would start out from kindergarten and appear to lack a little of interpersonal skills, self-control, and behavior problems started by the teacher that was asked to evaluate the students. Due to the fact that they don't have interaction with other students would give them these types of problems and skills. Later on, the behaviors of children without sibling will catch up the those children who have sibling by the time they reach middle school. Dr. Downey concludes that the children who doen't have siblings improve over time because of the continuation of teachers that provide group projects and school clubs. The activities five the students a change to spend time and interact with others their own age.
However, Dalton Conley has a different conclusion, "it's plausible these only kids have trouble relating to fellow 5-year-olds," He added, "as they age, they are better able to relate to kids who are more adult like." Therefore, the children without sibling tend to make friends and have better relationships with other students that are more adult like rather than those who have child like personalities.
LINK TO STUDY: N/A
ARTICLE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/fasion/12Studied.html?_r=1&ref=sociology
SUBMITTED BY: Hue Ly
Showing posts with label 14 Social Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 14 Social Psychology. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
A Failure To Communicate
AUTHOR: Pamela Paul
PUBLICATION NAME: The New York Times.
DATE OF PUBLICATION: August 29, 2010
SUMMARY: This article is basically on the fact of knowledge that if someone speaks English to you in an accent, you are less likely to believe what he or she is trying to tell you. I would say this is majority true unless it is a big threat to me or for the sakes of others. They also did research as when you are reading font in newspapers and magazines. If it is typed neat, then you believe what it is saying, but if it is wet and hardly able to see, then people don't take much offense to what the article has to say. They did an experiment with 35 people, some speaking with different accents and their studies related to what they thought the outcome was going to be. This isn't really important to know of in the field of Psychology, but it gives people the more expanding knowledge and research to look for when they come along people with heavy accents. Thus article does not counter exist any research done in the past. It agrees to what other articles to what people wrote about people with heavy accents. It is human nature that people intend to think about strangers that they do not know that they are more helpful or trustworthy when speaking English precisely. Some people might think this is absurd but when you truely think about it, you find that it is actually done by a lot of Americans and there isn't a number out yet, but I wonder what the percentage is of those people are. For me, with strangers, I would think on first reactions about those who speak with accents that they wern't as well educated than those who speak English without an accent.
LINKS TO STUDY: None
ARTICLE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/fashion/29studied.html
SUBMITTED BY: Matthew Menezes
PUBLICATION NAME: The New York Times.
DATE OF PUBLICATION: August 29, 2010
SUMMARY: This article is basically on the fact of knowledge that if someone speaks English to you in an accent, you are less likely to believe what he or she is trying to tell you. I would say this is majority true unless it is a big threat to me or for the sakes of others. They also did research as when you are reading font in newspapers and magazines. If it is typed neat, then you believe what it is saying, but if it is wet and hardly able to see, then people don't take much offense to what the article has to say. They did an experiment with 35 people, some speaking with different accents and their studies related to what they thought the outcome was going to be. This isn't really important to know of in the field of Psychology, but it gives people the more expanding knowledge and research to look for when they come along people with heavy accents. Thus article does not counter exist any research done in the past. It agrees to what other articles to what people wrote about people with heavy accents. It is human nature that people intend to think about strangers that they do not know that they are more helpful or trustworthy when speaking English precisely. Some people might think this is absurd but when you truely think about it, you find that it is actually done by a lot of Americans and there isn't a number out yet, but I wonder what the percentage is of those people are. For me, with strangers, I would think on first reactions about those who speak with accents that they wern't as well educated than those who speak English without an accent.
LINKS TO STUDY: None
ARTICLE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/fashion/29studied.html
SUBMITTED BY: Matthew Menezes
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
No prosecutions in Spence Labs break-in
AUTHOR: B.A. Morelli
PUBLICATION NAME: Iowa City Press-Citizen
PUBLICATION DATE: November 30, 2010
SUMMARY: The Spence Laboratories at the University of Iowa were vadolized but no one was prosecuted for these wrong-doings. The perpetrators spilt chemicals and freed the test mice and the lab animals. These perpetrators caused $450,000 in damages to the labs and basically got away with it. Some of the professors at the University were even said to have psycological damages because of the break-ins. They feel as though they are no longer safe in the labs.
One of the berglars were discovered and were taken to court but because the young man agreed to a plead bargain, he was only given a misdeminer. Many of the professors thought that this wasn't fair enough because what they did was wrong and they are only getting off with a misdeminer.
Many of the enviromentalists were fightend of following these young mens exaples because of the long and hard hours the FBI spent on this case. Because the FBI spent these long hours, making the environmentalists afraid, made many of the Universities professors thankfull.
PUBLICATION NAME: Iowa City Press-Citizen
PUBLICATION DATE: November 30, 2010
SUMMARY: The Spence Laboratories at the University of Iowa were vadolized but no one was prosecuted for these wrong-doings. The perpetrators spilt chemicals and freed the test mice and the lab animals. These perpetrators caused $450,000 in damages to the labs and basically got away with it. Some of the professors at the University were even said to have psycological damages because of the break-ins. They feel as though they are no longer safe in the labs.
One of the berglars were discovered and were taken to court but because the young man agreed to a plead bargain, he was only given a misdeminer. Many of the professors thought that this wasn't fair enough because what they did was wrong and they are only getting off with a misdeminer.
Many of the enviromentalists were fightend of following these young mens exaples because of the long and hard hours the FBI spent on this case. Because the FBI spent these long hours, making the environmentalists afraid, made many of the Universities professors thankfull.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Stereotypes: Why We Do It
AUTHOR: Anne Murphy Paul
PUBLICATION NAME: Psychology Today
DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 01, 1998. Last reviewed: August 01, 2009
SUMMARY: This article is basically about how and why people stereotype. Researchers who studied stereotyping asked people about how they felt towards a certain race or minority group. Because of this, "psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level[...]" Another experiment was conducted- how quickly people respond when a positive word was paired with a white name, and a negative word paired with a black name. "Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished--allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly." (huge quote!) Studies also show that we are too vulnerable to society's judgments about people/minorities/races-- thus making us stereotype. "Without it (stereotypes), we wouldn't survive. Stereotypes changes the field of psychology because it shows how the mind is easily influenced by anything we see or hear. This research doesn't counter existing history, since stereotypes have lived for many centuries. We should care about stereotypes, because, although stereotypes make life "easier," they are also incorrect (at times). For example, not every Asian is smart nor every African American does drugs. Despite it being a "mental shortcut," we should break the stereotype- although it would be very difficult. Stereotypes downgrade (more than upgrade) a person, a race, minority or religion- which is morally wrong. (Idk an alternative word for morally wrong..)
LINKS TO STUDY:
ARTICLE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199805/where-bias-begins-the-truth-about-stereotypes
SUBMITTED BY: Kristine Vu
PUBLICATION NAME: Psychology Today
DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 01, 1998. Last reviewed: August 01, 2009
SUMMARY: This article is basically about how and why people stereotype. Researchers who studied stereotyping asked people about how they felt towards a certain race or minority group. Because of this, "psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level[...]" Another experiment was conducted- how quickly people respond when a positive word was paired with a white name, and a negative word paired with a black name. "Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished--allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly." (huge quote!) Studies also show that we are too vulnerable to society's judgments about people/minorities/races-- thus making us stereotype. "Without it (stereotypes), we wouldn't survive. Stereotypes changes the field of psychology because it shows how the mind is easily influenced by anything we see or hear. This research doesn't counter existing history, since stereotypes have lived for many centuries. We should care about stereotypes, because, although stereotypes make life "easier," they are also incorrect (at times). For example, not every Asian is smart nor every African American does drugs. Despite it being a "mental shortcut," we should break the stereotype- although it would be very difficult. Stereotypes downgrade (more than upgrade) a person, a race, minority or religion- which is morally wrong. (Idk an alternative word for morally wrong..)
LINKS TO STUDY:
ARTICLE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199805/where-bias-begins-the-truth-about-stereotypes
SUBMITTED BY: Kristine Vu
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Being a Mama's Boy: Good for Your Health?
Author: Eben Harrell
Publication Name: Time Magazine
Date of Publication: Aug. 27 2010
Summary:
Links to Study: Not founded
Article: www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014038,00.html
Submitted by: Hai Vo
Publication Name: Time Magazine
Date of Publication: Aug. 27 2010
Summary:
In a recent study at Arizona State University's School of Social and Family Dynamics, being a mama boy maybe good for your health. By interviewing groups of boy the conclusion came to be that as boys grow up they tend act what they think a man should act, hiding their emotions and acting masculine. So if something bad happens they try to handle it themselves instead so asking for help. With all this pressure of 'being a man' suicide rates for boys jumps at the age of 16. Mama's boys tend to skip all of this, as they did not act as tough and were emotionally available. As result they had a better mental health in middle school.
Another cultural influence to young boys discussed by Sharon Lamb, a professor of mental health at the University of Massachusetts is superheroes. From the result of her survey of 674 boy’s superheroes causes boys to be overly masculine. All of this masculinity is because of the growing acceptance of homosexual, which is cause for a wider gap of gender stereotypes. Since people are afraid of being seen as gay act more 'manly'. She also blames today’s superheroes because in the “modern superheroes” found in movie are all action. Today’s superheroes rarely talks about good virtue. She points out Iron Man as a example of a modern superhero and his bad influence. All in all accepting the gender stereotypes is bad for the health, so being a mama's boy is good for the health.
Another cultural influence to young boys discussed by Sharon Lamb, a professor of mental health at the University of Massachusetts is superheroes. From the result of her survey of 674 boy’s superheroes causes boys to be overly masculine. All of this masculinity is because of the growing acceptance of homosexual, which is cause for a wider gap of gender stereotypes. Since people are afraid of being seen as gay act more 'manly'. She also blames today’s superheroes because in the “modern superheroes” found in movie are all action. Today’s superheroes rarely talks about good virtue. She points out Iron Man as a example of a modern superhero and his bad influence. All in all accepting the gender stereotypes is bad for the health, so being a mama's boy is good for the health.
Links to Study: Not founded
Article: www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014038,00.html
Submitted by: Hai Vo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)