Blog 2 Directory Information

Hi all,

I have now completed my second blog. Unfortunately due to technical difficulties I was unable to post my second Blog onto this page and have had to post it under another account. See bleow for links to each aspect of Blog 2.

* Blog 2 - A Theroretical Overview of Family Systems Theory within the Discipline of Social Psychology

* Concept map - Contributors to Family Systems Theory

* Self Evaluation & Online Analysis

* List of postings made by me on my blog

* List of comments made by me on other Blogs

* List of comments made by others on my Blog

* List of disussion board postings #1

* List of discussion board postings #2

Concept Map for Blog 2

Blog 2 - Draft

Abstract Predominantly associated with the work of Murray Bowen, Family Systems Theory represents a hypothesis which views the family as an emotional unit and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions within this unit (Carr, 2006). Numerous individuals have contributed to this theory, inevitably furthering the theory to the extent to which it is currently known. Focusing on Family Systems Theory, this paper outlines the basis for this theory before outlining the major theorists associated with the development of the theory. This paper will also discuss the basis of the theory and examine why this theory is considered effective in explaining family connections. Finally, this paper will discuss the relationship between Family Systems Theory and the discipline of Social Psychology, providing an overview of the predominant connections which can be made. The nature nurture debate has long been argued but whether this is due to environmental or genetic factors is irrelevant when speaking in terms of family connections. The last century has seen a transformation of marriage and family life, though the influence of family members has remained unchanged (Carr, 2006). Family members have been shown to profoundly affect each other’s thoughts, feeling and actions (Rosenblatt, 1994), in a number of ways. Few theorists have incorporated this view into their theoretical framework, however one predominant theory has integrated this view as a foundation for the family influence hypothesis to be based upon. This theory, Family Systems Theory, is now one of the oldest and most distinguished theories in relation to working with families in the psychological profession (Corey, 2001). This paper will provide an overview of Family Systems theory, focusing on the basis for the theory, and why it is considered effective in explaining family connections. The article will then discuss the research conducted on Family Systems Theory as well as the standing of the theory in society today. Finally, the connections between Family Systems Theory and social psychology will be outlined and explored in alignment with recent psychological research.

Family systems theory is a theory of human behaviour that views the family as an emotional unit and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions within this unit (Carr, 2006). Originally termed family homeostasis by Jackson (Bump, 1991), the concept was furthered by Murray Bowen and later by Michael Kerr (Gladding, 2005). Both theorists suggested the connectedness and reactivity found among family members makes the functioning of family members interdependent (Corey, 2001) and founded the theory upon these principles. Family Systems theory, or Bowen Theory as it is also known, is grounded on three main assumptions. One, that the clients problematic behaviour may serve a function or purpose for the family; two, that the clients problematic behaviour is may be a function of the families inability to operate productively; and thirdly, the maladaptive behaviour may be a symptom of dysfunctional patterns handed down from generations (Corey, 2001). Encompassing these three assumptions as a basis, Family Systems Theory aims to explain an individual’s maladaptive behaviour through the terms of their family interactions. A change in one person’s functioning can be predictably followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning of others in the family system (Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujiie & Uchida, 2002). However when family members get anxious, the anxiety can escalate and spread to numerous members of the family network (Carr, 2006). These patterns of maladaptive behaviour can be learnt through items such as observation and modelling, which through these patterns can be passed down from generation to generation. Family Systems Theory is based on the belief that individuals who do not examine and rectify patterns of negative behaviour passed down from previous generations, are likely to repeat these behaviours in their own families (Gladding, 2005). This therefore requires an intervention which Family Systems Theory is able to provide. Family systems theory emphasises a number of basic concepts through which family dynamics can be best understood and treated. These include differentiation, the family as an emotional system, family projection process, sibling position, societal regression, and triangular systems. As a central principle of family systems therapy is that that the client is connected to living systems and that change in one part of the unit echoes change through the other parts, the approach to treatment usually incorporates all members of the family (Corey, 2001). The ultimate goal if Family Systems Therapy is to eliminate triangular relationships which may involve the individual, and two other members of their family, and focus on singular relationships. Ultimately dual relationships should be reduced and relationships should be focused on individualisation, autonomy, and intimacy (Gladding, 2005). Family systems theory is rapidly becoming one of the most popular and effective methods of problem solving (Prest & Protinsky, 1993). Unlike conventional psychological theory which focuses on the individual, Family systems theory encourages people to think of issues in terms of a multigenerational family or system, and essentially encourages people to move away from blaming others and towards individual responsibility (Gladding). The aforementioned synopsis of Family Systems Theory provides reasoning for the logic and effectiveness of the theory to provide an overview of family connections.

While based on the initial work of Bowen, numerous researchers have had an influence on the development as well as furthered and incorporated many new concepts in to family systems therapy (Corey 2001), (see figure 1). Furthermore most of the researchers have furthered the theory by incorporating new concepts and branching these off with the hope of providing further depth and knowledge to the theory.

Figure 1. Contributors to Family Systems Theory.

Researchers have found Family System Theory to be effective in a number of ways, and have found three key advantages to incorporating family orientated principles into the therapeutic setting. Firstly, through incorporating the use of family systems theory into therapy, it may broaden the therapist’s perception of the problem (Larson, 1984). This can provide the practitioner with a holistic view of the problem and how best it can be treated. Another strength of family systems theory is that it takes into account the congregation as a whole, as a living organism that is continually affected by every part that comprises the whole. (Prest et al, 1993). This provides a global view of the individual and their social constructs, and may offer a more detailed therapy session in light of this (Carr, 2006).

However academics have also outlined a number of disadvantages to incorporating family systems theory in to therapeutic settings. For a number of reasons it is not always possible to integrate the family into the treatment process (Gladding, 2005). However this theory can still be applied to situations such as this, as they are able to conceptualise the problem in family systems terms and help the individual change the system by changing his or her role in the system (Larson, 1995). Knudson-Martin (2002) suggested that the Family systems model ignores many of the positive aspects of togetherness and is not able to be used with individuals from collectivist cultures. Despite these disadvantages, family systems theory is still largely supported and found in practices at present. It is commonly found in a number of areas of psychotherapy including eating disorders, suicide and depression (Barlow & Durand, 2006). Comparing a number of therapeutical treatments Shapiro, Welker and Jacobson (1997) found that therapy encompassing family systems theory principles was positively correlated with effective treatment. Furthermore the study found that interventions focusing on the family systems model were associated with a higher treatment response than individuals who undertook other forms of treatment. Therefore family systems theory can be an important element to many areas of clinical practice. Generally the family is considered a social environment in social psychology, In Family Systems Theory the family is referred to as a unit in which the family interacts, is engaged in, and has been shown to influence individual members of the system (Gladding, 2005). There are a number of social psychological concepts which can also be applied to Family Systems Theory. Possibly considered to be the most important in Family Systems terms is the overall social network of the family. The social network of the family is an important feature of a loving, accepting, and facilitating relationship (Rosenblatt, 1994). Therefore the availability of family may be linked to social psychology. This is not only limited to the physical presence of family members, but also emotional availably. In one study, infants were observed whilst engaging in free play (Volling, McElwain, Notaro & Herrera, 2002). The study found that infants who had emotionally available parents were more likely to engage in effortful play than infants whose parents were less emotionally available. In family systems terms this emotional unavailability may be rooted in an unconscious level of family life as well as potentially cause generational behaviour pattens which may disrupt healthy functioning (Carr, 2006). When this is disrupted, negative emotions and personalities can be triggered and, ultimately passed down through numerous generations if intervention is not sought. Suggesting that people come to like things because they see or encounter them repeatedly, propinquity or the mere exposure effect can also be applied to families (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). As people generally tend to like things that are familiar, the interactions and behaviour seen within the family may be the conduct and interaction that is best liked by an individual. Though as concluded in the saying ‘Familiarly breeds contempt’, this is not always a healthy construct. This may also lead to negative symptoms such as anxiety, negative behaviour, as well as family and generational manifestations (Gladding, 2005). Acceptance may be the most important aspect of any social relationship including that of being accepted within the family unit (Baumeister et al, 2008). In family systems terms, families which display a minimal chance of anxiety, social exclusion and rejection, are less likely to seek treatment in the Family Systems therapy setting (Schweitzer, Zwack, Nicolai, Weber, & Hirschenberger, 2007). Overall, a relationship which encompasses love, acceptance and the reciprocity of these interpersonal relations, is important are important aspects of both family systems theory and the discipline of social psychology. In conclusion, Family Systems Theory was conceptualized in order to explain an individual’s maladaptive behaviour through the terms of their family interactions. Despite numerous disadvantages, Family Systems Theory is still largely supported and found in practices at present. Research has shown that incorporating family systems into therapeutic practice is an important element which can enhance the recovery of the client. There are a number of ways in which Family Systems Theory can be connected to social psychology. Through the understanding of each of these items and integrating this knowledge into practice, Family Systems Theory may aid in the utility of this distinguished social interactions theory. References Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (2006). Essentials of Abnormal Psychology, 4th Edition. Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning, U.S.A, 256-279. Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology & Human Nature. Thomson Learning Inc, Belmont USA, 224-249. Bump, J. (1991). D. H. Lawrence and family systems theory. Renascence, 44 (1), 61- 80. Carr, A. (2006). Family Therapy: Concepts, Process and Practice, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, United Kingdom, 3-580. Corey, G. (2001). Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 6th Edition. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Stamford, 384-451. Gladding, S. T. (2005). Counselling Theories: Essential Concepts and Applications. New Jersey Columbus, Ohio, Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, 181-195. Knudson-Martin, C. (2002). Expanding Bowen’s legacy to family therapy: A response to Horne and Kicks. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 28 (1), 115-118. Larson, J. H. (1995). The use of family systems theory to explain and treat career decision problems in late adolescence: A review [electronic version]. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 23 (4), 328-337. Prest, L.A., Protinsky, H. (1993). Family systems theory: A unifying framework for the codependence. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 21 (4), 352-360. Rosenblatt, P. C. (1994). Metaphors of Family Systems Theory: Toward New Constructions. Guilford Press, New York, 1-175. Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process, 41 (3), 328-350. Shapiro, J. P., Welker, C. J., & Jacobson, B. J. (1997). A naturalistic study of psychotherapeutic methods and client in-therapy functioning in a child community setting [electronic version]. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26 (4), 385-396. Schweitzer, J., Zwack, J., Nicolai, E., Weber, G., & Hirschenberger, N. (2007). Family systems psychiatry: Principles, good practice guidelines, clinical examples, and challenges. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77 (3), 377-385. Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., Notaro, P. C., & Herrera, C. (2002). Parents’ emotional availability and infant emotional competence: Predictors of parent-infant attachment and emerging self-regulation. Journal of Family Psychology, 16 (4), 447-465.

Concept map of Contributors to Family Systems Theory

Family Systems Theory - An Overview

Hi All, As I am nearing the completion of my second blog I thought I would post a brief overview of what is contained and furthered within it. There other aspects that will be covered though I am yet to complete them. Stay tuned for more on Family systems theory. - Family systems theory is a theory of human behaviour that views the family as an emotional unit and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions within this unit. - Founding theorists Murray Bowen (and later Michael Kerr) suggested the connectedness and reactivity found among family members makes the functioning of family members interdependent and founded the theory upon these principles. - Family Systems Theory believes that individuals who do not examine and rectify patterns of negative behaviour passed down from previous generations are likely to repeat these behaviours in their own families. - Family systems theory is rapidly becoming one of the most popular and effective methods of problem solving. Unlike conventional psychological theory which focuses on the individual, Family systems theory encourages people to think of issues in terms of a multigenerational family or system. Essentially this approach encourages people to move away from blaming others and towards individual responsibility. - Family systems theory is still found in practices today. It is commonly found in a number of areas of psychotherapy including eating disorders, suicide and depression. (References list available in Blog 2) (sorry about the spacing, but this thing has a mind of it own!!)

Plan of Attack for Blog 2

Hi all, After much reading for my second blog, I have finally planned how I will be approaching my topic which I have posted below. It is just a rough outline at the moment encompassing what I currently think the essay should entail. As I begin writing it, I may find that it flows better by placing items in a different order, and as I further research the topic I am sure I will find a few more things which should be included, which I will add and update you all on my progress. If anyone else can think of anything else I should include please just let me know!

Introduction

What is Family Systems Theory?

-Definition

-Who devised this theory?

-What this theory based upon?

-Why is this theory considered effective in providing an overview of family connections?

Research supporting the effectiveness of Family Systems Theory

-What research has been conducted regarding family systems theory?

-Is family systems theory still supported today? Why?

Connections between Family Systems Theory and Social Psychology

-Interactions

-Social networking

-Familiarity / Similarity

-Interpersonal relations

-Need to belong -Reciprocity

-Propinquity

-Availability of family members

-Minimal chance of social exclusion and rejection = Acceptance

*Including research on the connection of each one

Conclusion

References

Appendix A

Blog 2 Topic

Hi all, For by second Blog I have decided on the question: What is family systems theory? Explore connections between family systems theory and social psychology. I think family systems are a vital part of our social network. I think most of us would be able to say that they feel more comfortable when surrounded by family members that by friends. This may in part be attributed that individuals have usually spent more time with family members than they have with any other person. Hypothesised by Murray Bowan, Family Systems Theory is a theory of human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions in the unit. It is the nature of a family that its members are intensely connected emotionally. Often people feel distant or disconnected from their families, but this is more feeling than fact. Family members so profoundly affect each other's thoughts, feelings, and actions that it often seems as if people are living under the same "emotional skin." People solicit each other's attention, approval, and support and react to each other's needs, expectations, and distress. A change in one person's functioning is predictably followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning of others. Families may differ s in the degree of interdependence they display, but it is always present to some degree. So i think this is a really interesting topic for my second Blog. As I begin researching, I will post more information surrounding the Family systems Theory as well as the way in which it relates to our field - Social Psychology! Reference http://www.thebowencenter.org/pages/theory.html

My Concept Map

Variables Depicting Aboriginal Stereotypes in Australia

Abstract Aboriginal stereotypes have been in existence for many years, generally depicting negative aspects of the Aboriginal community. Due to this reasoning, although indigenous Australians currently form two percent of the population, Aboriginals are considered as a minority group in Australia (Beilharz & Hogan, 2006). The formation of Aboriginal stereotypes has been widely researched, overall results suggesting these are cognitively developed. Focusing on the cognitive theory of stereotyping, this essay outlines how stereotypes surrounding the Aboriginal community were formed, as well as determining how such stereotypes have been maintained in order for them to be in existence in society today. This paper will also discuss variables which may be involved in the preservation of Aboriginal stereotypes, and evaluate methods which may be effective in producing a positive change in the stereotypes associated with indigenous Australians. Essay Indigenous Australians inhabited the country of Australia well before the arrival and settlement of white man. Although aboriginals currently make up around two percent of the population, in society today the aboriginal community is considered a minority group in Australia (Beilharz & Hogan, 2006). There are many stereotypes surrounding aspects of the lives and intelligence of Aboriginals, though generally these stereotypes surround assumption that indigenous Australians possess lower levels of intelligence than that of their non-indigenous counterparts (O’Driscoll & Feather, 1985). With most cognitive generalisations being negative in nature, stereotypes produce a pervasive and destructive problem (Pederson & Walker, 1997). Cognitive theory of stereotyping suggests that there are many variables involved in the formation of stereotypes (Brown, 1995). The first process that may have lead to such stereotypes is the perceptual act of categorisation (Worchel, Cooper, Goethals & Olson, 2000). From the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788, aboriginals have continually been seen as different from their European descendants. Heuristically categorising or placing similar objects or stimuli together, produces assumptions, which form schemas regarding groups such as the Aboriginal community (Worchel et al, 2000). Tajfel (1978) furthered this hypothesis by postulating two cognitive consequences of categorisation. Firstly, if stimuli are put into groups the difference between the groups is enhanced. Secondly, individuals perceive members of their group as different from themselves; however, individuals perceive members of other groups as immeasurably similar to other members of their group. While the in-group / out-group bias cognitive shortcut allows individuals to minimise efforts in coping in a complex world, this oversimplification can be inaccurate and generally has a high degree of error (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Without the use of accurate knowledge of the aboriginal community, assumptions and generalisations can be formed based on inaccurate information. This was seen up until the 1970’s before which time officials believed Aboriginals were primitive beings who were incapable of adequately providing for their offspring, forcibly moving children from their parents and life as they knew it (Beilharz et al, 2006). Although not to the same degree, aboriginal stereotypes such as these are still in existence in society today. Larsen (1978, cited in Pedersen et al, 1997) developed a scale to measure prejudice towards Aborigines among university students. Results showed that nearly half of the participants were found to posses either negative or ambivalent feelings toward Aborigines. Administering a revised form of the scale, Walker (1994, cited in Pedersen, 1997) found similar results. One explanation for this may be that stereotypes can be learnt from parents and other individuals more experienced in the world (Worchel et al, 2000). These sociocultural forms of learning exist through people extracting perceived regularities in the traits of people they encounter, and applying this knowledge to draw inferences about either unobserved or perceived features of other individuals (Smith & DeCoster, 1998). Illusionary correlation is also a way in which stereotypes can be formed. For example, seeing an intoxicated aboriginal may found an individual’s belief that all Aboriginals are dependant on alcohol. As the individual has based this on direct observation they may determine that this assumption is correct and not check for its accuracy (Worchel et al, 2000). This may then develop the schema based on skewed knowledge or input that may provide the individual with heuristically determined information when seeing or interacting with other members of the Aboriginal community (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Finding others with similar opinions as one’s own has also been attributed to the formation of stereotypes, as suggested in Bandura’s theory of social learning (Mak & Barker, 2004). Stereotype consensus is a powerful way in which individuals determine their opinions of others (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). However this may lead an individual to be interdependent upon another person and simply adhere to their opinion, furthering the stereotype. These variables are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. The Variables Involved in Building Aboriginal Stereotypes. There are a number of ways in which negative stereotypes towards aboriginals may be maintained. Stereotypes would be much more accurate if they changed when perceivers encountered disconfirming instances; however as humans are biased information processors, this does not usually occur (Worchel et al, 2000). Similarly, stereotypes bias information in which the individual attends to (Baumeister et al, 2008). Selective attention produces individual expectancies, which are strongly correlated with the maintenance of Aboriginal stereotypes (Islam & Jahjah, 2001). For example, Kunda & Oleson (1997) conducted a study in which participants prior stereotypes were measured. Participants were then exposed to an environmental situation in evidence disconfirmed their stereotype. Overall results showed participants perceived the evidence in order to coincide with their existing schema, concluding their stereotype was accurate. Therefore encountering information which opposes a stereotype may not necessarily change the typecast individuals have formed (Kunda et al, 1997). Research into the area of selective perception has shown that selective perception unconsciously allows individuals to selectively determine the stimuli in which they attend to. For example, testing the perceptive effects of alcohol, Hammersley, Finnigan & Millar (1992) administered participants with either an alcoholic solution and told participants the drink had no alcoholic content, or a placebo solution which had no alcoholic content. Results showed that participants who believed they were ingesting alcohol displayed stronger signs of intoxication than participants who thought they were not receiving alcohol. Aboriginal stereotypes may also be maintained through the use of selective perception. Individuals forming an aboriginal stereotype and perceptually believing the stereotype is based on accurate information, may produce a self-fulfilling prophecy which inherently confirms a biased stereotype. The maintenance strategy of selective memory furthers the use of inaccurate information. An individual attending and remembering selected information in their stereotype of Aboriginal people are more likely to remember Aboriginal behaviour if it is fitting with their stereotype than behaviours which oppose it (Kunda et al, 1997). Synder and Uranowitz (1978) suggest that people use stereotypes as retrieval cues, and search their memory in a biased manner. Aboriginal stereotypes exist in many aspects - though are all stereotypes negative? Centrelink has a different payment for Indigenous individuals than it does for non-indigenous Australians. Is this recognising the difference in the aboriginal heritage or aiding people in determining that aboriginals are different and therefore fit a particular stereotype? Recognising cultural differences and facilitating intercultural learning may be a positive step in lessening these psychosocial barriers (Mak et al, 2004). Social learning programs which emphasise knowledge and social acceptance have been shown to reduce stereotypes (Mak et al, 2004; Ward & Masgoret, 2006). However, such programs have also been shown to have little success. Assessing changes in attitudes, Hill and Augoustinos (2001) measured participant’s stereotypes of Aboriginals immediately after and three months following the program. Results indicated that the program had pronounced positive effects immediately after the program compared to a baseline established before the program. However these positive effects diminished and were not evident three months after participants completed the program. While this outcome depicts the view that social learning programs are not effective ways of reducing stereotypes, such programs do emphasise that utilising an integrative model of intervention which is crucial in minimising stereotypes (Ward et al, 2006). Although there is conflicting research regarding the effectiveness of social learning programs, it is widely accepted that attitude change usually focuses on reorganising knowledge, information, and belief structures of out-group members (Snyder & Miene, 1994, cited in Islam & Jahjah, 2001). While intervention programs may not be effective in reducing prejudice and stereotypes in all circumstances, it does encompass all aspects associated with positive attitude change as well as utilising the best known way if reducing stereotypes – knowledge (Hill et al, 2001). Through utilising education, whether through social intervention programs or self facilitated learning, individuals may be able to recognise the positive qualities the Aboriginal community encompasses, and embrace indigenous individuals into community settings. In conclusion, Aboriginal people have been the victims of negative stereotyping for hundreds of years. Through the use of research conducted in the area of social psychology, it has been determined that that people extract regularities in the traits of the people they encounter applying this knowledge in order to draw inferences about perceived features of Aboriginals. The Cognitive Theory of Stereotyping suggests these typecasts may have been developed through different forms of social learning and are generally maintained through individuals selectively determining the stimuli in which they attend to. Humans will always employ the use of stereotypes, but the effects of these can be minimized through acquiring factual knowledge about the Aboriginal community. Education reduces presumptions and ultimately judgments of Aboriginals which is currently the most effective way to reduce stereotypes.

References Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology & Human Nature. Thomson Learning Inc, Belmont USA, 146-177.

Beilharz, P., & Hogan, T. (2006). Sociology: Place, Time & Division. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Australia, 361-366.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, 5-116.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11 (4), 315-319.

Hammersley, R., Finnigan, F., & Millar, K. (1992). Alcohol placebos: You can only fool some of the people all of the time. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1477-1480.

Hill, M. E., & Augoustinos, M. (2001). Stereotype change and prejudice reduction: Short and long-term evaluation of a cross-cultural awareness program. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 243- 262. Islam, M. R., & Jahjah, M. (2001). Predictors of young Australians attitudes towards Aboriginals, Asians and Arabs. Social Behaviour and Personality, 29 (6), 569-580. Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1997). When exceptions prove the rule: How extremity of deviance determines the impact of deviant examples on stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (5), 965- 979. Mak, A., & Barker. M. (2004). A social cognitive learning program for facilitating intercultural relations. In Y. Kashima et al (Eds). Progress in social psychology, 4, Seoul: Kyoyook- Kwahak-Sa, 157-179. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Feather, N. T. (1985). Positive prejudice in ethnic attitudes: Australian data. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 95-107. Pederson, A., & Walker, I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: old fashioned and modern forms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 561-587. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). Interpersonal relations and group processes: A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751-783. Smith, E. R., & Decoster, J. (1998). Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person in person perception and stereotyping: Simulation with a recurrent connectionist network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1), 21-35. Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S. W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (9), 941-950. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press, London, 102-276. Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671-682. Worchel, S., Cooper, J., Goethals, G. G., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Social Psychology. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, 192-223.

Appendix A Self-Evaluation of Blog Written Expression Final Word Count = 1435 Readability Analysis: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 12.6 I have included an abstract to aid in the readability, and also included an introduction, body and conclusion, a self-evaluation and Blog postings list in the appendix, as well as a reference list. Citations used in the body of the essay are references appropriately in the reference list which is consistent with the APA style of formatting. I devised a concept map which I included in the body of the article (see Figure 1) which depicts my understanding of the psychosocial variables involved in the formation of Aboriginal stereotypes. Results of my readability analysis indicate that the level of my academic writing style could be improved, which I will work on for Blog 2. Theory and Research As my reference list will show I was able to effectively search and locate articles which supported the voice I displayed throughout my Blog topic of Aboriginal Stereotypes. I sourced a moderate number of books and journal articles which was peer reviewed and pertinent to my topic. Research cited in my Blog ranged in age from 1978 to 2008. Although studies and literature published near thirty years ago has aged, I believe that it was important to go back to the original source of particular concepts, building on and comparing these to more recent literature. While there were numerous psychological theories which could have been used for my Blog, I felt it would be easier to understand how Aboriginal stereotypes formed as well as be more informative if I concentrated on one particular theory. Online Engagement I believe my Blog is inviting for others through my use of visual information and friendly tone, and generally easy for others to follow and understand. In my Blog I have included a profile of myself summarising my interests, hobbies and goals for the future. I have also on numerous occasions viewed the profile of my fellow classmates in order to better understand their interests, as well as get a better idea of the issues which may be of interest. I have made a number of comments on other people’s Blog’s, including participating in research conducted by one of my classmates in their survey (These are listed with the appropriate links in appendix B). Although not as early as I would have liked, I created my Blog relatively early in the semester and have since made weekly postings. Since its inception my Blog has included discussion surrounding lecture topics, as well as adding useful sections in an attempt to enhance the learning of others and myself. I also began a discussion surrounding cultural barriers which received two comments which were responses to questions I had asked. I believe this demonstrates my ability to facilitate a discussion based on the knowledge of a number of individuals. In light of this I believe that I do have a unique voice that could connect and share with others more frequently, which is to be my goal for my second Blog.

Appendix B Postings List of my postings: ‘Mission Completed’ 5th August 2007 ‘The Complexity of the Human Brain’ 13th August 2007 ‘Cultural Barriers’ 16th August 2007 ‘Blog 1 – We’re on the Downhill Run!’ 2nd September 2007 List of postings to other people: Kara’s Blog: 26th August 2007 Jules’s Blog: 29th August 2007 Beck’s Blog: 31st August 2007

List of postings in reply to my posts:

#1:

13th August 2007

#2:

16th August 2007

#3:

16th August 2007

Blog 1 - We're on the Downhill Run!

After much deliberation I have decided to do my first assessment item for this unit on Stereotypes in the Aboriginal Community. Indigenous Australians inhabited the country of Australia well before the arrival and settlement of white man. There are many stereotypes surrounding aspects of the lives and intelligence of Aboriginal and other indiginous habitants, however the one I am going to focus on surrounds the assumption that indigenous Australians possess lower levels of intelligence then non-indiginous Ausralians. I have based my essay around the Cognitive Theory of Stereotyping and discuss the formation and maitainance of this misconception. I've just about finished so I will post my essay up here shortly along with my references and concept map if anyone would like to have a quick squiz at any stage. I hope everyone is going well with their Blog 1 and is loking after themselves during our time away from Campus!

Cultural Barriers

Watching Ghosts of Rwanda yeasterday in the lecture, I couldn't help but feel annoyed at the social following and rejection that took place. Particuarlly with countries wanting to pull out their troops, but as they did not want to be socially shunned they convinced other countries to do so at the same time in order to avoid a possible 'reputation' (one which they inevitably gained anyway). While I recognise that the leadership of a country would be a mammoth job with an unthinkable amount of pressure and hard line decisions to make, I was alarmed to hear that other countries were so easily led. They then determined that they were not able to help as their government policy stated that they were not to involve themselves. However thinking to the september 11 terrorist attacks in the US for example the fight this has still not ended nearly six years later. Why is there this indiscrepancy? Is the sociocultural / racial barrier so thick that we are unable to assist in times of such turbulance? So my question is: to what extent do cultural barriers exist? Does anyone know of any theories or research which has been conducted in the area of this divide?

The Complexity of the Human Brain

Catching up on the reading which I had already fallen behind on I thoroughly enjoyed chapter five in our text book. I found the section on heuristics particually fascinating. While I had heard of the concept of heuristics I was in awe of the complexity of the brain. It is almost comparable to a computer - though a computer is not adaptable. The ability of our brains to fix incomplete information (or at least to make it understandable) is amazing. Researchers at Cambridge University have found that as long as the first and last letter of the word are in the right place it doesn't matter the order of the other letters the word. This is because or brain does not read each individual letter of the word but the word as a whole. If you would like to try this out for yourself, I have posted the jumbled sentences onto the bottom of my blog page.

Mission Completed!

Good day everyone! What a challenge it has been to get this up and working! Knowing only the basics surrounding the wonders of the internet the world of cyberspace in this regard is completely new to me. Though while finding it a challenge, I have found it interesting and been in awe the technical capabilities the internet can support. Remembering back to the time in which the internet was a new concept and technological breakthrough for all, the advances in this technology have not yet ceased to amaze me. Oh what else must lie ahead for people like I who are being taught about the exciting new world of cyberspace! While still finding the concept creating a personal blog daunting, I hope for everyone that you enjoy embarking on this journey as much as I have so far!