Psychology Essay: Social Influence.

What material from the "Social Influence Effects" will you use in your own life? How?

Personally, I have very often wondered what leads people to fall victim to conformity and compliance - particularly, with groupthinking [i.e., group pressure], so I found this section of the material particularly interesting.

Here are the eight symptoms of "Groupthink", as defined by social psychologist Irving Janis:

• An illusion of invulnerability, which results in excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

• Collective rationalization in which group members disregard warnings and do not challenge their own assumptions.

• A belief in inherent morality that leads members to believe in the rightness of their cause and ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

•The presence of stereotyped views of out-groups, or negative views of people who are outside the group, making effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

• Evidence of direct pressure on dissenters, such as when members are under pressure not to express arguments against the group’s views.

• A sense of self-censorship in which individual members do not express doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus.

• An illusion of unanimity, in which the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

• The presence of self-appointed “mindguards,” or members who protect the group and it's leaders from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Groupthink can be prevented when leaders actively solicit various opinions and expert assessments and when people are assigned to conduct risk assessment. Soliciting the opinions, ideas, and perspectives of people outside the group increases the likelihood of a neutral assessment.

Personally, especially in regards to stating an opinion on what I consider to be a matter of importance, I need time to consider the issue alone, maybe even writing down what I think or feel on the matter, and possibly ideas about a solution. I'm very aware of and sensitive to how powerful this really is, and especially in the past few years of my life, I've made it a point to not fall victim to it; I don't want to ever be responsible for making a faulty decision; lose my mental efficiency; sense of reality; my moral judgment; self-identity, as a result of group pressure.

Psychology Essay: Attitudes.

What will you take from the material on changing attitudes that you will use or help others apply? How?

I've personally seen the truth in this point in my own life:

"[Persuasion] tends to be more effective as an attitude-changing tool when one or more of certain conditions are met, including:

Invisibility of persuasive attempts

A person who realizes that he is being persuaded is more likely to consciously mobilize change-resistant behaviors, but one who is unaware of the attempt to change his mind is less likely to become defensive. A person with a very strong attitude is more likely to notice and react defensively to subtle persuasive attempts than someone with a milder attitude."

Simply put, this is done by using positive reinforcement for desired behaviours and words, and tactfully not approving of the undesired ones. In situations where an individual feels that his/her personal freedom to make decisions is being curtailed, he/she may respond by acting in an opposite fashion [i.e., reactance].

Now, I am against manipulation [which is a form of emotional abuse], obsessive demands to one's way of thinking, and classifying those not sharing the same beliefs and opinions as I, as inferior and not worthy of respect. However, I can see the tactic I've stated above as being useful if being applied [in a loving way] towards a loved one who, for instance, has perhaps developed prejudices.

Psychology Essay: Attribution.

What in the material on attribution do you see applying to yourself? Why?

Attributions:
Judgments people make about the reasons things happen.
[Often influenced by a person's previous experience, personality, and other factors].

As I touched on in the discussion forum this week, I personally related to battling the Self-Serving Bias, in which people attribute their successes to internal or personal factors but attribute their failures to situational factors beyond their control. Have you ever known people that liked to judge themselves by their motives, and everyone else by their actions? People that loved to take credit for any success, but had no problem shifting responsibility when facing negative consequences? It seems convenient to me, too; it usually kicks in to spare one's self-esteem and image.

I don't believe that I suffer from the "illusory superiority" that's related to this common human tendency; nevertheless, this default response is one that I personally don't like in myself, and I'm therefore a little sensitive towards seeing it in other people [because I work hard on not being that way, it irritates me when I see other people living in self-denial and not trying] - which is yet, another thing I try to keep balanced with.

Psychology Essay: Aggression.

What did you see in the theories of aggression that you could take and use with the people in your life who have problems with aggression? How? What could you use to help them should they ask? What will you use to help yourself better handle anger issues you may have?

By way of review - simply put: aggression is any action that's intended to cause harm [be it verbal or physical]. In general, there are two types of aggression:

• Hostile/hot aggression [i.e., you get some sort of satisfaction and emotional reward out of causing any kind of pain].

• Instrumental/cold aggression [i.e., acting aggressive to defend or protect].

There are three major theories on aggression:

• Frustration-Aggression Theory
[Centered on displacement of anger]

• Social Learning Theory
[Centered on learning by example]

• Aggression as an instinct
[Centered on, as the name suggests, innate reasons of aggression - such as fighting for survival]

The one that I seem to highlight the most in my personal life, I suppose would follow under the Social Learning Theory - I personally disgress with being entertained by violent / aggressive acts [i.e., watching movies that glorify violence]. We all have heard reports on the harmful effects of exposure to violent media content, especially in regards to children, but they're largely ignored. "A clear picture has emerged that exposure to violent media increases the likelihood of aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behavior," as writes author Keilah Worth, PhD. Unfortunately, violence is one of the most popular forms of entertainment. That says a lot about society.

Now, what could I use to help someone else, and myself, with aggression?

First and foremost, realize that uncontrolled anger leads to uncontrolled deeds. Anger is a normal and, sometimes, healthy emotion, but - as pretty much everyone knows, if it's uncontrolled, it can be extremely destructive.

Has anyone ever told you to just punch a pillow; a bag; a doll that looks like your ex? It's called Catharsis, and it's widely believed to ease tension and filter aggression - but in reality, it's quite the contrary. The more you act aggressive, the more aggressive you are going to be. When it comes to choosing which anger management techniques to use, keep this in mind: aggression leads to aggression.

"Take a deep breath!" "Count to ten!" "Bite your tongue!" Sound familiar? I recommend reciting them to yourself to calm down inner agitation. In my personal life - when I've felt on the edge of an outburst, I've left right then to go on a walk; not only does removing myself from a heated situation help to calm me down, but it also gives me the peace and quiet that I need in order to collect my thoughts and start focusing on a solution.

I've mentioned in a past essay which stress relieving techniques I personally like to use [here]; whether it's a fleeting annoyance or a full-fledged rage, the same techniques can apply.

Psychology Essay: Interpersonal Relationships.

What did you find was of value to you in the material on interpersonal relations? How will you use it in your own life?

"Opposites attract" is a commonly held phrase and belief, but the reality is - as confirmed by the studies of Meyer and Pepper in 1977 - those who seemed to be “opposites” were more likely to suffer marital conflicts and less likely to stay together. The better-adjusted couples were more alike in terms of needs and qualities like aggressiveness, autonomy, nurturance, and impulsiveness than poorly adjusted couples.

Another good point from this week was that, for a relationship to be carried out successfully, it is vital that both partners have approximately equivalent levels of passion, friendship, and commitment. If one partner has a narrower attachment than the other, the relationship is likely to flounder due to the couple’s dissimilar priorities.

Personally - I see a lot of misconceptions in action in the world. Contrary to the popular cliché's, love is much more than just an overpowering romantic feeling. I liked that the material this week brought out:

"People with similarly held beliefs and attitudes are more likely to become involved and stay involved with each other."

If a couple has entered a serious relationship, and especially if they are considering marriage, having important issues such as: values; concepts of each one's role in marriage; where and how you will live; views on raising children; immediate and long-range goals and how you will achieve those; etc. - are not only frankly discussed, but in harmony.

Going along with the material's point on both partners contributing equivalent levels of passion, friendship, and commitment - personally, I can't stress that enough. A successful relationship boils down to both partners having equal amounts of genuine concern and love for each other - and I want to highlight again, that genuine love for a person is more than an overpowering romantic feeling. It is balanced by reason and deep respect for the other person, and it is neither self-centered nor selfish.

When you are really in love, you care just as much for the other person's welfare and happiness as you do your own. You do not let overpowering emotion destroy good judgment.

Psychology Discussion: Judgements - Attribution & Attitudes.

If our attitudes flow in part from our attributions, it would seem that our attributions for others behaviors are rather important. How much time and energy do you invest in making sure you aren't guilty of the fundamental attribution error or the self-serving bias?

Personally, this is something that I try very hard in my life to avoid; I've been guilty of doing it in the past, without really ever realizing it, but since becoming aware of the typical human tendency some time ago, I've made it a point to not be guilty of this in my own life.

I think what it really boils down to, are two things:

• Learning to place yourself into another person's shoes.

• Realizing that you simply don't [always, at least] know everything about another person's situation.
- Even if it's someone that you are [very] close to.

As the material brought out for Self-Serving Bias:

"One's own external factors are given far more weight than internal factors in explanations of failures."

Between the two judgment errors listed here, I'll admit that this is the one that I have been the most guilty of. My own personal experiences with that have taught me that, even if you are aware of external factors and what the person may be experiencing, there may be internal factors that you are simply not aware of.

Psychology Essay: Physical Atrraction.

The text makes the comment that the most influential thing in liking early in a relationship is physical attractiveness. Would you agree with that? Why or why not?

Agreed.

During the very first impressions, initial judgments are made entirely on the basis of external observable factors - such as physical appearance, dress, and observed behavior. Whether or not one is even aware of it, consideration is immediately given to whether or not one finds that person physically attractive.

In the second stage of a relationship - the building stage, in which both people in the relationship continue to make value judgments about each other, learn about each other, and decide whether they want to invest more time and energy into pursuing the relationship - the nature of interactions between people becomes less superficial, and more focused on whether like or love emotions are present in the relationship.

But early in the relationship, yes, physical attraction is the most influential thing.

Psychology Essay: Decision Making In Groups.

What in the material on "Groups" did you find useful? How will you apply it in your life?

The material brought out how effective brainstorming can be when making decisions within a group setting, in which a large number of ideas or alternatives can be given in a short time period. For this to be carried out effectively, the material broke down brainstorming into two stages:

• Idea Generation: No ideas are rejected in the initial round, and ideas flow freely as a result.

• Assessment: Each alternative is assessed by the group for feasibility.

I also liked the nominal group technique, which is very similar to brainstorming, except it uses an anonymous approach to reduce conflict between individuals, like so:

After a problem is presented to a group, each member offers ideas for solutions in writing, and the ideas are presented anonymously to the group and discussed. This technique is very effective for groups that, while needing to make decisions together, have not necessarily bonded and achieved a cooperative spirit. It permits issues that are pertinent to the group as a whole to be examined separately from the involved personalities.

I can see myself making practical use of both of these, whether it's with a professional committee, or my family - but I especially admired the nominal group technique. As we all know, just because conflicts arises, life doesn't stop; things still need to be done, and decisions still need to be made. The nominal technique helps you to focus on these decisions, and not the people involved, when doing so is a challenge.

I was introduced to brainstorming back when I was in primary school, so I grew up knowing how effective that technique is, but the nominal technique is new to me. Communication was not a very strong positive point in my household growing up, so anything that promotes positive communication - especially when conflict arises - is of great value to me.

Psychology Essay: Group Conflict.

What will you take from the material on "Group Conflict" that you will apply in your own life? How will you apply it? What are you already using/doing now that is effective? Give an example.

As everyone knows, conflicts and disputes exist everywhere, among all people, and they are an inevitable part of life. Group conflicts involve several elements - including emotions, needs, perceptions, power, and values. Emotions and feelings can complicate or create conflicts, particularly when suppressed or ignored, and are strongest when issues of personal expression, self-concept, shame, and pride are involved. They also often lead to anger and potentially violent outbursts. Power also influences conflicts, and the misuse of power causes conflicts.

The material also brought out this good point:

Even when there are measures in place to prevent failure - trust, reliable avenues for communication, a competent leader, and a sense of how to resolve conflicts over group goals and personal issues are necessary.

Covey’s seven-habit philosophy is a useful tool for managing and avoiding conflict. As he brings out in his book, the process of honest and open communication and an attitude of seeking understanding lead to more effective and constructive interactions among people. It's also very important to learn how to think win-win, as opposed to win-lose. Look for solutions that are mutually beneficial.

A common response to conflict is the "fight or flight" response. By default, most people tend to either respond aggressively [i.e., forcing and competing], or otherwise, retreating [i.e., remaining silent and giving in] - but neither fighting nor fleeing is a constructive response to conflict. Instead of thinking fight-or-flight, think unite.

One important thing in particular that I would like to bring out about being competitive within the group that one should be working with, and not against - analyze what competition is for a moment. Competition is a struggle between members that determines which viewpoint is dominant without permitting the option of compromise. While having a competitive edge in business is good when dealing with competition, it can destroy the social bonds that preserve the group [i.e., lack of progress and resentment] if directed towards one's team and especially if left unchecked.

I really liked this point from the material this week:

Compromise and collaboration tend to generate mutually satisfactory outcomes. Collaboration involves three elements:

• Confrontation
- Open and honest acknowledgment and addressing of problems.

• Integration
- Examining options and decision making.

• Smoothing
- Calming upset feelings and renewing relationships.

It is generally the result of honest mutual concern about the issue and the welfare of all the group members - and it usually results in a win-win solution, fosters commitment and positivity, and reduces conflict.

This goes beyond business; this can definitely be applied into daily, personal life. This is wonderful advice for sorting out conflicts of all kinds. Personally, I'll admit that when I feel unheard, my default reaction is a defensive one - and this stems from a feeling that no one else will do this for me. It's a reaction rooted in fear, more than anger. The material on integrating differences is very practical knowledge, and helpful to me, personally. Mary Parker Follett emphasized creative and mutually beneficial solutions - "this approach focuses on not merely collaboration and cooperation between parties, but also recognition of the needs of both and an intent to meet both sets of needs."

To my credit, it's safe to say that I'm fairly good at not lying to myself; I call it like I see it, even with myself. Maintaining meaningful relationships is important to me, because I value the input from people that I love and trust. Only to a point, do I now accept the 'take me as I am' mentality that so many people place value on - while I do get the point of what many people are trying to get across by that statement, I don't allow myself to use this as an excuse for not building character. I'm always interested in bettering myself - and I know I'm not perfect, so the reality is, there will always be need for improvement - therefore, I'm going to try my best to keep improving. Therefore, I value constructive criticism, and I am open to what people honestly tell me out of love.

I also am fairly good at demonstrating empathy. I try my best to be there for people I care about, and listen to them; I highly encourage others to develop [and hold onto] this beautiful quality, as well. I've managed to hold onto it, despite how some people have taken it for granted and abused it in the past, and I'm so glad that I have. I know for a fact that the rewarding relationships I am now able to enjoy, would not be the same without it, and I know that I am a better person for having it.

Psychology Essay: In Management.

What will you take from this material on leadership and management and apply in your own life? How?

I liked that the material pointed this out:

Leadership and management are different concepts. Leaders inspire others to follow, and managers manage the performance of defined job tasks. Leaders can have subordinates in a managerial role, but leaders must also have followers who are inspired to comply with their ideals through their own free will.

I think the information that I found the most valuable was on Participative Leadership - basically, what this means, is involving your employees in some [not all, at least not necessarily] key decisions, which is especially helpful when creative thinking is needed for complex issues; i.e., being democratic. The material brought out these points that I specifically want to mention:

• Employees of participative managers can often be counted on to meet their professional responsibilities without constant monitoring.

• The sense of independence gained by employees contributes to increased job satisfaction and, ultimately, increased organizational productivity and success.

• Participative employees feel respected and valued for their contributions to the organization.

Especially since today, there are many intelligent, highly skilled professionals out there - motivating workers to do their work, as the material brought out, without constant monitoring, is based on making them feel valued. In the words of Mitch McCrimmon: There is simply no better way to make people feel valued than to ask them, genuinely, for their advice.

However, participative leadership depends on a very necessary condition.

As Stephen Covey brought out in his book, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", this is all dependent on habits and behaviors that you have changed in your personal life.

The reason I mention this, is because not all leaders are capable of using participative leadership. If you are narrow-minded, negative, often jumping to conclusions - or, you simply believe that your thinking is the best of all - than you are going to have much greater issues when it comes to inspiring your workers to do the work, and being able to trust them [and vice versa].

Realizing this, I therefore try my best to better my character, on a daily basis, in my personal life. I place a lot of importance on learning about myself, as well as people around me, knowing that this will greatly influence for the better my relationships with others - and that includes in the world of business.

Psychology Essay: Under Management.

The text gives a good deal of material on leadership and management. Should your boss ask you how to be a better leader and manager, what might you take from this material and suggest to him/her?

Ah! That is a really tough question. If this were to actually happen, I would worry about how honest I could actually be without losing my job. Hmm. If my previous manager had asked for my input...

Before offering constructive criticism, I would tell her what I appreciated, first. For instance, I always felt comfortable working with her. She was very easy to talk to, and I never felt that she was trying to intimidate me or was being condescending towards me. That was something that I had dealt with before from previous managers, so I didn't take for granted the fact that she was a down-to-earth type of individual.

After this, I would then broach on what troubled me the most - what I had to offer as a worker was being very underestimated, and by scheduling me such few hours, she denied me many opportunities to let her see that for herself. I loved the work that I did, and I was happy to do it; I hoped to have more responsibilities and challenges, but by the time my third year there had ended, it seemed obvious to me then that I was being overlooked. Being the type of worker that I am, a Theory Y managerial style works best with me. As far as I could see from the few times I actually did work with her, she seemed, anyway, to manage from that style, which leads me to believe that we would have had a good manager - employee relationship.

Sadly, as things turned out instead, I did not feel noticed, respected or valued, and in the end - at the start of my fourth year in the company - I was sick with severe insomnia [I was denied the twenty hours a week I needed in order to have the medical insurance I desperately needed in order to sleep at night]. This, unfortunately, led to my being late to work, which resulted in my being let go. I was told, quote, "I know you have insomnia; I understand" - with the sentences before and after this pertaining to my being separated from the company. Somehow, I don't think I was met with understanding at all.

Elton Mayo, after the psychological experiments he conducted at Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago during the late 1920s - early 1930s, made a very interesting observation that I would like to end this essay with:

While working as a unit during the experimental period, the six employees developed a sense of belonging that was intrinsically more valuable than any of the additional perks enjoyed during that time. Even after the work group was disbanded, the workers maintained higher levels of productivity, in large part because of the increased attention they received from the experimenters.

Psychology Discussion: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

Stephen Covey's book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" is arguably one of the most influential books on maximizing potential in the past 25 years. Which of Covey's 7 habits do you see as the most valuable? Why? Can you give an example of it?

[Here is a brief overview of the book as found in Wikipedia]

At first, I wanted to choose one of the first three habits, which focus on moving from dependence to independence [the goal is to become interdependent, but as Stephen Covey brings out in his book, one cannot be interdependent without first knowing how to be independent] - but, the more I thought on it, I actually feel that the most important, out of all of the seven habits, is the fifth one: "Seek First to Understand, then to be Understood".

This means more than simply listening to what another person has to say, or simply being aware of the other person's perspective. It means putting yourself mentally and emotionally in the other person's place. It's more than thinking - it's feeling the other person's meaning. It means knowing how to display empathy, and contrary to much popular opinion, empathy is positively related to job performance.

"Though task-oriented skills like monitoring, planning, controlling and commanding performance or “making the numbers” are important, understanding, caring, and developing others is just as important, if not more important, particularly in today’s workforce."

- The Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology Conference in New York

It should be noted also that having empathy is not the same thing as demonstrating empathy. Conveying empathic emotion is defined as the ability to understand what others are feeling, the ability to actively share emotions with others, and passively experiencing the feelings of others in order to be effective.

I also want to highlight the order in which Stephen Covey lists this habit - seek to understand, then to be understood. It also means not putting yourself first.

For trustful communication to exist, understanding is vital. When a manager is an empathetic, good listener, people feel respected and trust can grow - which leads to leveraging individual differences, and the better solving of solutions. How can this be reached, if we are entirely too fixated and stopped at a "fight or flight" mentality? Highly effective people, as Covey brings out, realize that they can make the best out of issues they perhaps only have indirect control over by using empathy. Gracefully accepting the fact that we have only limited control at times, and making the best of the situation, can lead to much better results than complaining and focusing on/creating negative energy.

A brief example of this is if you have an employee who is facing a personal loss - being willing to listen; being sensitive to signs of high stress; showing an interest in the problem; showing yourself willing to help, etc., is a wonderful way of showing empathy.

Psychology Discussion: Authoritarian, Democratic or Lassez-Faire?

The text gives us several theories on leadership and management in Chapter 8. Which one are you most likely to use should you be in the position where you are responsible for the productivity for a group of people? What strengths come along with this theory? What are its weaknesses?

What influences my answer the most is the experiment that Kurt Lewin made in the 1930's, in which there were four groups of ten year old boys [with five members in each], meeting to participate in arts, crafts and in similar hobbies. The groups experienced a succession of various adult leaders, who assumed a different leadership style - Authoritarian, Democratic, and Lassez-Faire [since the latter term is not often used, in brief, under lassez-faire leadership, the management refuses to help the group].

Here are the findings, as presented on udel.edu:

Maintenance output. First, the researchers found that the democratic leadership style led to greater satisfaction with the group experience than either the authoritarian or the laissez faire styles. The experimenters asked the 20 boys if they preferred the democratic or the authoritarian leaders. Nineteen of them said that they favored the democratic leaders. The scientists then asked 10 of the boys to compare the democratic and the laissez faire-style leaders. Out of these 10, 7 said that they preferred the democratic leadership method.

Second, the groups that had the democratic-style leaders appeared to be the most cohesive. During the study, one of the methods that scientists used to measure levels of cohesiveness was to determine the ratio between how often the members used group-oriented pronouns, such as "we" and "us," and how often they used individual-oriented pronouns, such as "I" and "me." In addition, the researchers looked at other indicators of cohesiveness, including the levels of friendly statements, mutual praise, sharing of work materials, and playfulness. The democratic groups had the highest levels of these factors. The laissez faire groups were also fairly cohesive, perhaps in response to their "nonleading" leaders.

In contrast, the groups with leaders who used an authoritarian style were far less cohesive than the other groups. Observers compared the behavior of the boys in the authoritarian-led groups with the behavior of those in the democratic-led groups. They noted 30 times as many acts of hostility and 8 times as many acts of aggression in the authoritarian groups. In addition, authoritarian-led sessions had the highest levels of statements of discontent and the largest levels of absenteeism.

Task output. As for their work output, both the authoritarian and the democratic groups outpaced the laissez faire groups. The boys in the authoritarian groups worked 74 percent of the time when their leaders were present. This compared with a work level of 50 percent for boys in democratic groups and 33 percent in the laissez faire groups. However, when the leaders left the room, these percentages changed. Groups following a democratic leader continued to work at a 46 percent level. In contrast, the work time for authoritarian groups fell drastically to only 29 percent, implying that the members of the authoritarian groups had little desire to work. On the other hand, groups with leaders using a laissez faire style actually worked more when their leaders left the room. Their work time increased to 52 percent. This result implies that these members remained motivated.

Finally, the researchers judged the work of democratic groups highly. They considered this work to be of higher quality and originality than the performance of authoritarian and laissez faire groups.

Kurt Lewin's experiment proves that the highest levels of satisfaction and cohesiveness resulted from a democratic style of leadership, as well as producing a greater desire to work and to produce quality work. I therefore believe that the democratic method is the best of the three leadership styles - however, I do not believe that the democratic style is always the best. For instance, as the material for class brought out, authoritarian leadership is useful in a correctional setting [e.g., prison] and situations in which there are relatively inexperienced employees who need a high degree of direction.

Psychology Essay: Morals.

After reading the material on moral development, at what stage do you see yourself? What did you learn? What did you learn from the material on "Understanding Unethical Behavior?"

Personally, I find uncovering the determinants of moral judgment and behavior fascinating in it's own right. When and how do people learn to distinguish between right and wrong? How do they learn to care for others and for themselves in relation to others?

Moral development involves establishing a moral or ethical outlook so a person can react responsibly. It involves both the intellect and mind to make judgments, but morals and ethics also are influenced by emotions, social and cultural circumstances, values, individual interests, and goals within the context of social cooperation.

As s/he progresses through the early years of life, a young person gradually develops patterns of thinking and behaving that is less selfish and more other-oriented. Kohlberg broke it down like so:

• Pre-Conventional Level: A child modifies his behavior based on the knowledge that misbehaving will lead to punishment.

• Conventional Level: Most adolescents behave according to an awareness of social roles and others’ expectations.

• Post-Conventional Level: Most adults become aware of individual opinions and values that may conflict with those of other individuals and of society in general. People understand the social contract, which leads them to behave in a manner that benefits society; universal ethical principles, or principled conscience, take precedence.

Beyond Post-Conventional Level:
A person may even clearly see that it is right and just to disobey a law in some cases [based on a notion of justice, a complex idea that develops with maturity and leads a person to do what is right even if doing so is inconvenient, difficult, or dangerous]. Most people never reach this stage; it is almost exclusively the domain of exceptional individuals who devote and even risk their lives for social justice.

I see myself at the Post-Conventional Level. Experiences with life haven't exactly led up to my 'even risk[ing my life] for social justice', but I aspire to be that person. Mayhaps, the time will come when I will prove, even to myself, how selfless and mature of a person I really am.

In my research of morals and unethical behavior, I found this in PsychWiki, and thought it rather fascinating:

Do some people lack morals [i.e., criminals]?

The short answer is no. Most who follow the social intuition model would say that all non-psychopathic people moralize, even racists [Gomberg 1990, Haidt 2001]. For example, people who commit genocide, warped as it may be, often justify their actions on moral grounds [i.e., protecting one's group, retaliating for past group injustice, or keeping their group pure]. People high in psychopathy may be the exception to this and research is currently underway to determine if this is indeed the case by seeing if psychopaths exhibit lower brain activations when given moral dilemmas.

Given the ubiquity of moral reasoning and the non-intuitive diversity of moral standards that can be derived from moral reasoning, it seems reasonable to conclude that racist attitudes would have a moral basis and therefore be susceptible to moral reasoning. Skitka, Bauman, and Sargis [2005] found that beliefs that lead to extreme interpersonal distancing are often linked to moral convictions. Some have even drawn parallels between racism and more universally accepted values such as patriotism [Gomberg, 1990].

Which leads me to the third part of the essay question, on understanding unethical behavior.

Consider the horrific phenomenon known as genocide, which has occurred in Nazi-occupied Europe, Stalin’s Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and, more recently, in Rwanda and Darfur, Sudan. How could so many people participate in such inhumane acts?

During the Holocaust, human beings who were transported, harmed, or killed were often referred to as “pieces” or “merchandise” in memos. This is an example of using a euphemism, or a neutral word or term that covers up something negative or unpleasant, as a way to deny or avoid confronting an ethical question. They dehumanized the people they were harming, diminished the consequences of their unethical behavior, attributed blame for inflicting harm [i.e., 'following the orders' of a supervisor], and justified the genocide because it was for 'a higher cause'.

Psychology Essay: Personality.

What in the material on "Personality, Group Dynamics, and Conflict Resolution" can you use in your own life? Give an example.

I got to learn about The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in this chapter - the psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. As The Myers & Brigg's Foundation states,

"The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment."

Personally, I feel that this test has helped me to better understand myself, why I interact with others and why I approach the world in general in the way that I do. It really fascinates me how accurate this test seems to be; personally, I felt that my results were right on target.

Psychology Essays / Discussion: Personality & Leadership.

From the school's discussion forum:

How would you describe your own leadership style? Which theory from our reading best explains your personal leadership style? Evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

Personally, I admire the Transformational Leaders the most: The charismatic leaders who inspire, evoke emotion, and cause followers or workers to identify with them, and have the ability to communicate his or her vision or goals for the organization to subordinates - who will make the vision possible. I also really respect the Theory Y approach, which focuses on people’s intrinsic desire to do their work well and motivates them by providing freedom and opportunities. I know from experience, working under these types of managers, that it leads to the most positively engaged, satisfied, and productive workers.

I'm also the kind of person that also pays attention to the emotional aspects of the job. I want to inspire employees to do their best work, and part of how this is done is by showing an understanding of the challenges the workers face; that empathy will inspire an employee to try harder, while a domineering boss might cause a worker to resist or revolt.

Essays:

How will you use the material on "Personality and Leadership" to improve your life in the areas of your life where you have to take the role of the leader?

Aside from agreeing with the Transformational Leader and the Theory Y approach to leadership, the material we covered also warns on what to avoid, and why.

Traditionally, many people have assumed that leadership is based on a single person imposing his or her over-sized personality over others, but a domineering and easy-to-anger leader is less likely to receive feedback from the people who work under him, and such feedback is crucial to stay informed. The threat of insult or punishment may not be the best motivator for producing good work results. By recognizing that interactions with others have emotional content and impact, they can be more effective because managers and the people they manage can avoid being divided by negative emotions.

How could someone in a leadership position related to you (professional, community, government) use the material on leadership to be a more effective leader? (What should your boss do to be a more effective boss?) If they are already the perfect boss, what is it that they are doing that makes them so?

I like how Fergus O’Connell [How to Run Successful Projects (O’Connell 34)] summed up a leader:

"When I say “leader,” I mean not so much the person with the title, but a person who is going to get the project done. She lives, eats, and breathes the project. She is going to get it done or die in the attempt. At any given time, she has her finger on the pulse of the project."

A team’s leader has a primary role in the creation and ongoing coherence of the team. Leadership failures often derive from unequal work distribution - some members may take on less work than they should, and others may claim far too much. Personally, for me, as far as my last job was concerned, the former was an issue with me - I never had enough work, even though I was more than willing to take on a greater share of the work, and my ability to do the work assigned was never in question. This can lead to workers feeling unappreciated, frustrated and resentful. The job prior to that, I was assigned way too much work [managing a department completely alone, and without a raise or even given insurance - hence, my decision to quit].

Leadership failures also often derive from flaws in the clarity of the team’s goals—which should provide a clear sense of the point toward which the team is moving. This challenge can be overcome by prioritizing, planning, communicating, clearly defining roles and responsibilities among team members, and building trust. As a leader, it is vital that you know how to gauge members’ assets and liabilities and assign them the right roles, and also how to keep them motivated and in motion.

Psychology Essay: Personality Theories.

From the school's discussion forum:

There are many schools of thought that attempt to explain personality - trait, humanistic, Freudian, Jungian, etc. - which do you think does the best job and why?

[Note: No one school of thought is perfect, that's why the others exist. The question is which do you think is the best and why].

Personally, I saw a lot of truth in the Jungian theory and the Humanistic theory more than I did in the other theories presented. I'll share with you the points that especially made the most sense to me:

The Jungian Theory suggested that we have a human tendency - be it a conscious or subconscious one - that we have an archetype we look up to, which stands as a model against which an individual’s own behavior, thinking, and beliefs can be compared. The content of the archetypes may vary, but the human capacity to create and relate to them is universal. Archetypes are prototypes, models, or examples of experiences, ideas, and common personalities, such as hero, mother, father, wise old man, trickster, etc. Jung also believed that many archetypes reflect common experiences of fear, dreams, and wonder about elements of the natural environment, such as the moon, stars, and sun. Jung's ideas eventually became widely accepted, especially in the United States; his influence over the understanding of personality is felt in popular personality assessment in self-help books, fantasy literature, and films with characters that serve symbolic purposes.

Jung developed a personality typology that distinguishes people as introverts - who were focused on their inner selves, or extroverts - who were more interested in interaction with others. Dr. C. George Boeree brought out a point on this that I really liked and wanted to share:

"The words have become confused with ideas like shyness and sociability, partially because introverts tend to be shy and extroverts tend to be sociable. But Jung intended for them to refer more to whether you ("ego") more often faced toward the persona and outer reality, or toward the collective unconscious and its archetypes. In that sense, the introvert is somewhat more mature than the extrovert. Our culture, of course, values the extrovert much more. And Jung warned that we all tend to value our own type most!"

Jung further added that every person has some degree of each of these characteristics, but certain ones prevail and dominate the individual’s personality.

The Humanistic Theory as the name suggests, focuses on the “inherent value and dignity of human beings”, and gives individuals the power to define their own destinies and emphasizes free will and people’s capacity to control their own lives. Maslow suggested that "peak experiences", [i.e., frequently enjoyed moments that take us outside or beyond our usual selves and beyond day-to-day existence] give us a glimpse of the eternal, the infinite, and the sublime, and this transcendence allows a self-actualizer to return with renewed energy and insight to his or her life. This theory also focuses on "subjective experience", or emphasis on the client’s perspective — the psychological and environmental place from which the client had emerged.

In doing research on the Humanistic Theory, I liked this point made by the Spirit Lake Consulting, Inc.:

"Humanists believe that, unlike other species, humans are unique in being motivated by such needs as approval, recognition, achievement, and being the best that they can be. While birds and crickets make music, as far as we know, they don't care what the other birds and crickets think about their music, nor do they practice a great deal to make sure that theirs is better than the cricket on the next block!"

Because the theory places so much emphasis on YOU being able to control your personality - more than the environmental stimuli and reinforcers around you - issues dealing with self-esteem, self-fulfillment, and needs are paramount.

Essay Assignment:

What did you learn about yourself from reading the other theories of personality? (List and explain at least three things.) How will you use this material to improve your relationships (personal and/or professional)?

To be honest, the Trait Theory, Freud's Theory, Karen Horney's Theory -- basically, all of the theories with exception of the Jung Theory and the Humanistic Theory, I don't feel that I learned all that much about myself. The theories were very interesting to read about, but they didn't really provide me with any kind of insight into myself. However, hopefully, I can share with you three points that I did find interesting, nonetheless.

• When reading about the Trait Theory & Neo-Freudians, I learnt about Adler’s Inferiority Complex, in which he states that a sense of inferiority, originating in the relative helplessness of childhood, was what pushed some individuals to seek power and dominance over others. Adler believed that this could be overcome by learning to relate more positively with others, using charm, compassion, and humor as a way to have better exchanges. I suppose I can understand that; most people become dominating out of an insecurity, or a fear of being weak. I've often heard children say that they "can't wait until they bare grown up, and then they can tell people what to do." It's a childish trait, so it makes sense that this desire would stem from childhood.

• Again, when reading about the Trait Theory & Neo-Freudians, there was a proponent of the view that birth order affects personality, a belief that recently regained popular attention. It was theorized that the eldest and the youngest child had the biggest personality problems due to birth order - the eldest may be power-hungry or may have difficulty sharing, and the youngest may be full of empty dreams or be spoiled [according to Adler, middle children had it easiest because they were not pampered and they developed healthy competitiveness with their siblings]. This is difficult for me to identify with at all because, while I did have an older sibling -- being a twin, I wasn't exactly spoiled [everything we had, we shared], and I never felt empty, even when it came to dreaming. My twin sister in a sense, dreamed with me; we encourage each other to pursue our passions, so we never feel misunderstood, or hopeless. I hope I'm making sense; it's a little difficult for me to put into words. The point I'm trying to make is, I know that I didn't quite have the same childhood that most 'youngest siblings' - or even middle siblings, I suppose - have.

• Karen Horney attributed neurotic disorders to childhood influences, but believed that people can change and improve by discovering and getting closer to their true selves. For the most part, setting aside the fact that many people suffer from severe mental illnesses in which they need the professional help of a doctor, I believe as well that people really do have more power than they might believe to transcend their problems through self-analysis.

These theories, even though I don't agree with them all, are very interesting to me nonetheless, and I welcome any knowledge available to me that will enable me to better understand myself and the people around me. The more that I know about why I am the way that I am and what motivates others to do the things that they do, the more able I am to work on myself and the more I can appreciate the unique differences in other people.