TCO 7: What Do The White Hoods Of Ku Klux Klan Members Flown

1tco 7 What Do The White Hoods Of Ku Klux Clan Members Flaming Som

1. TCO 7. What do the white hoods of Ku Klux Clan members, flaming somebody in a chat room on the Internet, and looting by mobs have in common with respect to lessening inhibitions? (Points : 10) With respect to the elements of persuasion, write one or two paragraphs on EACH of the following two factors: message content AND audiences . Explicitly explain why and how these factors apply to the presidential case above. Question 2.

The Black Student Union members protested to university administration, saying that Sigma Chi was being racially insensitive. A student protest emerged urging the banning of the fraternity. Individual African-American students were deeply disturbed by the noose imagery. The fraternity said it did not mean to offend anyone, and it was only a regular Halloween party. Hostility grew between student groups.

The university administration suspended the fraternity, worried about its already tension-filled relations with the surrounding community and other manifestations of intolerance in the student body. Analyze the facts of this scenario critically using the following approach: a. explicitly use three (3) concepts from the textbook in your analysis; b. identify and very briefly describe each concept you use and link it to specific evidence from the scenario; c. within your group of three course concepts include at least one (1) concept from Chapters 8 (Group Influences) and at least one (1) concept from Chapter 9 (Prejudice: Disliking Others) in your analysis.

Paper For Above instruction

The phenomenon of reduced inhibitions in social contexts often leads individuals or groups to engage in behaviors they might not typically consider appropriate or acceptable in calmer circumstances. This is evident in the comparison between the white hoods of Ku Klux Klan members, online flaming, and mob looting. All three instances involve a deindividuation process, where the anonymity and collective presence diminish personal accountability, prompting individuals to act in ways that express underlying prejudices or frustrations. The white hoods symbolize a terrifying collective identity rooted in racial supremacist ideology, which emboldens members to engage in acts of intimidation and violence without fear of personal repercussions. Similarly, online flaming involves disinhibition due to perceived anonymity—participants believe their identities are protected, allowing them to express hostility or offensive remarks openly. Mob looting, often occurring during tense social situations, exemplifies how crowds can act impulsively, driven by a collective mindset that overrides personal moral restraint. In all these cases, the shared aspect is the reduction of social inhibitions that generally regulate individual conduct.

Regarding persuasion, message content and audiences play pivotal roles in shaping behavior and perceptions. When analyzing the presidential case, the message content—whether it is coded language, symbols, or imagery—can subtly communicate underlying prejudices or intentions that influence audience reactions. For example, political campaigns often use symbolic messages that appeal to specific identity groups or evoke emotional responses, reinforcing biases or mobilizing particular voter bases. On the other hand, the audience’s composition and predispositions significantly impact how messages are received and interpreted. A crowd already predisposed to distrust or oppose a candidate may amplify offensive messaging or symbols, leading to acts of intimidation or violence, as seen with mobs or online flame wars. In the presidential context, understanding how message content interacts with audience perceptions helps explain patterns of collective behavior—whether it fuels hostility, solidarity, or apathy.

Turning to the scenario involving the Black Student Union and the fraternity, analyzing the situation through the lens of social psychology offers valuable insights. First, from the perspective of group influences (Chapter 8), the concept of conformity underscores how subgroup pressures within the student body may drive individuals to either oppose or support actions based on perceived social norms. Students protesting perceived racial insensitivity likely feel compelled to conform to their community’s moral standards on racial justice, which amplifies collective action against the fraternity. Additionally, deindividuation—the loss of self-awareness within a group setting—can explain the escalation of hostility, as individuals may feel less personally accountable when engaging in collective protests or accusations, leading to more extreme behaviors.

Second, the concept of prejudice from Chapter 9, specifically in the form of explicit bias, helps explain the heightened sensitivity to the noose imagery. Prejudice involves negative attitudes toward a group—in this case, African-Americans—that manifests in prejudiced reactions to symbols associated with racial violence. The fraternity’s Halloween party, perceived as trivializing such symbols, intensified existing prejudiced attitudes among students. Furthermore, social categorization processes, where individuals categorize others into groups based on race, reinforce stereotypes and biases, which fuels hostility against the fraternity and inflames tensions. The university’s suspension decision can be viewed as an attempt to mitigate the influence of these prejudiced attitudes and address the harmful impact of such symbols on vulnerable groups.

Overall, the scenario exemplifies how group influence mechanisms like conformity and deindividuation, along with prejudiced attitudes stemming from stereotypes and biases, contribute to complex social conflicts on college campuses. Recognizing these psychological underpinnings helps in developing more effective interventions aimed at fostering tolerance and reducing hostility rooted in prejudice and group dynamics.

References

• Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2017). Social Psychology (13th ed.). Pearson.
• Myers, D. G. (2018). Social Psychology (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Levine, J. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2019). Psychology of Group Influence. Routledge.
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
• Crano, W. D., & Prisbell, M. (2017). Attitudes and Persuasion: Psychological Perspectives. Routledge.
• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Atria Books.
• Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social Psychology. Harper & Row.
• Henley, T. (2017). Social Influences and Prejudice Dynamics. Journal of Social Issues, 73(4), 601-615.
• Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Pearson.
• O’Donnell, A. M., & Tobin, S. J. (2017). College Student Attitudes Toward Symbols of Racism. Journal of College Student Development, 58(3), 385-400.