Respond to your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:

• Ask a probing question.
• Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
• Offer and support an opinion.
• Validate an idea with your own experience.
• Make a suggestion.
• Expand on your colleague’s posting.

Post 1: (Write a 50-100 words response)

Gender Socialisation

For boys and girls, many behavioral differences are ascribed to differences in socialization. Research shows in over 100 societies that boys are generally raised to achieve and to be self-reliant and independent, while girls are raised to be nurturant, responsible, and obedient (Matsumoto, 2001). These socialization findings propose that there maybe subtle differences in the ways that boys and girls are treated by parents (Witt, 1997). An agent of gender socialization in all societies is caretaking. In 20% of 80 cultures examined, fathers were rarely or never near their infants. Most mothers are expected to be mother-infants (Matsumoto, 2001). Father-infant relationships were close in only 4% of the cultures and in most societies, play represented paternal interactions with children. It has also been noted that the absence of a father has been associated with violent or hyper-masculine behaviors (Matsumoto, 2001). When fathers are absent for extended periods of time due to war, their sons can display overt masculine aggression (Matsumoto, 2001). In Kurdish culture, men are often absent because of war, and there is an increase in hyper-aggression in adolescent Kurdish men. But contrastingly, in Canadian culture men are less absent because of war, and thus this tendency for violent hyper-masculine behaviors is lessened.

Educational settings also greatly influence children’s behavioral socialization. Parental beliefs about academic performance can have far-reaching impacts on children’s achievements. Research has shown that in some cultures education is more important for boys than girls (Matsumoto, 2001; Para-Mallam, 2010; Sadker, 1999). Girls tend to evaluate themselves considerably lower than boys on technical ability and are less likely to use computers outside school (Sadker & Zittleman, 2005). In Kurdistan for example, the traditional culture prioritizes education for boys over girls. Dissimilarly, the more egalitarian society in Canada tends to prioritize the education of boys and girls more equally. Similarly to Canada, the egalitarian society in the United States tends to prioritize education for boys and girls equally. So as a child, I had the same academic opportunities as my brother, but if I had been raised in a traditional culture, there is a chance that my brother would have been given greater academic opportunities. Furthermore, in the United States, father tend to have more contact with their infants than in other cultures. My father had interacted with me more than he would have had our family resided in a traditional society.

References

Matsumoto, D. (Ed.). (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Para-Mallam, F. J. (2010). Promoting gender equality in the context of Nigerian cultural and religious expression: beyond increasing female access to education. Compare: A Journal Of Comparative & International Education, 40(4), 459-477. doi:10.1080/03057925.2010.490370

Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 22–26.

Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2005). Gender bias lives, for both sexes. Education Digest, 70(8), 27–30.

Witt, S. D. (1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32(126), 253–259.

Post 2: (Write a 50-100 words response)

Automatic-controlled processing of stereotypical formation

The presence of automatic versus controlled processing of stereotype formation is explained using the prejudice habit model where automatic processing arrives from the associations formed from the observer’s culture as it relates to an object and controlled processing of stereotypes are a result of the observer’s beliefs about the object. (Forscher & Devine, 2016) Blatant applications result from direct attributions of negative information towards the target group with a threat-rejection paradigm and intimacy whereas, subtle stereotyping actions tend to be pertinent, but vaguer, and work through applying perceived social norms about the target in relation to the observer. (Olsen & Zabel, 2016)

The provided media, Stereotyping, (Laureate Education, 2011), provides numerous examples of both blatant and subtle stereotypical comments and inferences. The assumption that Sally, who appears to be of Asian descent, was thought to be Quan Lee, an IT person, had to use several reminders of who she was to the meeting members which was a blatant example of being stereotyped due to her physical appearance. More subtle approaches were noticed in the discussion about who was going to tie in the databases with numerous rejections of individuals such as implying that Jill, who was married, may not be a good candidate since there was a perception that she would become pregnant (due to being married) and unable to either finish or maintain the project.

The automatic stereotype processing seen in the media resulted in the blatant prejudicial remarks to Sally based on perceived norms of the representative culture differences between Sally and Karl. It is to be implied from the media that Karl assumed since Sally looked “Asian,” she must be Quan Lee and was an IT specialist, since Asians may provoke a belief that they are all good with computers. This generalization and assumption is culturally developed and propagated and results in blatantly biased attributions to the object.

Controlled processing pertains to the observer’s beliefs and biases. Steve’s comments about Jill’s possibility of becoming pregnant just because she was married shows Steve’s personal beliefs and biases. If it was not a cultural belief that all married women want to get pregnant, Steve’s comments and gestures shows personal aspects that are not necessarily in-line with cultural beliefs.

Human beings evaluate their environment constantly. It is an innate ability to be able to categorize objects primarily for survival reasons and resulting in whether it’s considered a good or bad thing. This allows rapid cognitive access, reducing the load on the working memory and may be based on personal or vicarious experiences. This categorization is not a bad thing, but rather it’s in the detrimental actions that occur due to incorrectly applying the information where it becomes problematic.

Mitigating this practice in the professional arena, there are awareness and skill issues to be acknowledged and education directed towards that awareness and alternative communication concepts. Cultural change is a laborious endeavor, however, the forces that promoted a belief about an object can be used to change that belief based on newer information or perceptions. Another approach could be in changing the perception of the belief so that people will recognize the generalizations are not widely applicable to all members of the group with the goal to soften the responses. (Stangor, 2016)

A second option would be to keep the belief intact, but alter people’s applications. Again, this would be a difficult task as the practice of stereotyping is ingrained in our social cultures. Still, repeated denial of that belief, self-awareness, education, and awareness of oppositional information has shown to reduce stereotyping automatically and directly. (Stangor, 2016)

As the supervisor, one also has the legal recourse to affect many changes in the workplace. Preventative education with the employees in topics that include sensitivity and awareness would be most appropriate avenue made possible by company directives for compliance. This education would be beneficial in the employee’s lives as the information is pertinent to all social situations. Personal example by management and other key players should be set in favor of positive interactions rather than contributing to the problem. It appears from the media that Karl lacks a personal awareness into his own actions and thus fails to see the other employees which further inflames the situation.

Workplace anti-stigmatizing efforts of mental health issues have been observed to be with mixed results. While the primary prevention used is education, there is evidence to support personal knowledge of members within the stigmatized group is more beneficial to limit those practices in the workplace. (Malachowski & Kirsh, 2013) Still, as this is primarily an inherent and cultural practice, it will take much effort and time to overcome generational habits.

References

Forscher, P., & Devine, P. (2016). The Role of Intentions in Conceptions of Prejudice. In T. Nelson, Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 245-248). New York: Psychology Press.

Laureate Education, I. (Producer). (2011). Stereotyping [Motion Picture]. United States of America.

Malachowski, C., & Kirsh, B. (2013, July). Workplace antistigma initiatives: A scoping study. Psychiatric Services, 64(7), 694-702. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201200409

Olsen, M., & Zabel, K. (2016). Measures of Prejudice. In T. Nelson, Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 179-180). New York: Pyschology Press.

Stangor, C. (2016). The Study of Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discriminiation within Social Psychology. In T. Nelson, Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 3-27). New York: Psychology Press.