Use Social Psychology Theory To Explain What Would Lead Some

Use Social Psychology Theory To Explain What Would Lead Someone To Con

Use social psychology theory to explain what would lead someone to confront the person who made the offensive comment or joke, when doing so may likely make them the target of the joke teller’s retaliation.

Paper For Above instruction

In understanding why individuals choose to confront offensive behavior, such as racially biased comments, through the lens of social psychology, several theories offer valuable insights. The decision to confront versus remain silent is influenced by complex social factors, including self-concept, perceived social norms, group identity, and fear of retaliation. Notably, social psychological theories such as the Bystander Effect, Social Identity Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Theory of Normative Social Influence can elucidate the motivations behind confrontation in potentially hostile environments.

Social Identity Theory and Group Boundaries

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. When a person witnesses an offensive comment targeting their group, such as a racist remark, their motivation to confront may be rooted in protecting their social identity. Confrontation becomes an act of defending one's in-group from perceived marginalization or threat. For example, in the narrative above, as a Black individual, the person may feel compelled to confront racist remarks to uphold their dignity and resist the dehumanization inflicted by the joke. The strength of one's identification with the group amplifies the likelihood of challenging offensive behavior, especially when the threat to group identity is perceived as significant (Spears, 2015).

The Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility

The Bystander Effect (Darley & Latané, 1968) describes how individuals are less likely to help or intervene in an emergency when other witnesses are present. In a workplace setting, especially where hierarchical authority exists, this effect can be compounded by diffusion of responsibility. An individual may hesitate to confront a perpetrator of offensive comments because they assume that someone else will address the issue or that leadership will intervene. The fear of becoming a target of retaliation, as in the case where the joke-teller might retaliate, further discourages confrontation. Consequently, the bystander may choose silence to preserve their safety, conform to perceived social norms of non-intervention, or avoid conflict.

Normative Social Influence and Conformity

Normative Social Influence (Kelman, 1958) refers to the tendency of individuals to conform to the expectations of a social group to gain approval or avoid disapproval. When confronting offensive language is perceived as socially unacceptable or unsafe, individuals might refrain from speaking out to conform with peer or organizational norms. Conversely, if the prevailing attitude supports silence or tolerates discrimination, individuals might rationalize their inaction. However, if the individual values standing up against injustice and perceives normative support, they are more likely to confront. In environments where speaking up is valorized, individuals experience less fear of retaliation.

Cognitive Dissonance and Personal Values

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957) explains how individuals experience psychological discomfort when their actions conflict with their moral beliefs. A person who values equality and respects others may experience dissonance when witnessing racist remarks. To reduce this discomfort, they might choose to confront the offender. The strength of this motivation depends on factors such as self-efficacy and perceived impact of their actions. For instance, an individual confident in their ability to effect change and who perceives confrontation as aligned with their moral values is more likely to intervene despite potential risks.

Fear of Retaliation and the Role of Self-Preservation

Despite the moral motivation to confront, fear of retaliation significantly influences decision-making. In social psychology, the concept of perceived threat influences protective behaviors. When individuals anticipate hostility or retaliation, their likelihood of confrontation diminishes (Miller & Salkind, 2014). In the context of workplace racial bias, the threat of being targeted or retaliated against by the perpetrator can outweigh the moral obligation to address the offensive behavior, leading to silence or passive resistance.

Personal and Situational Factors

Behavioral responses are not solely dictated by social psychological theories but are also moderated by personal factors such as self-confidence, past experiences, and perceived social support, and situational factors like organizational culture and leadership responses. For instance, organizations that foster inclusive cultures and have clear anti-discrimination policies empower individuals to confront bias without fear, aligning with the Social Norms Theory (Berkowitz, 2004), which emphasizes how organizational norms influence individual behavior.

Conclusion

In sum, the decision to confront offensive comments rooted in social psychological concepts involves a dynamic interplay of group identity, social norms, perceived risks, and personal morals. While group identification and personal values motivate confrontation, fears of retaliation and normative pressures often inhibit action. Recognizing these factors allows organizations and individuals to develop strategies that empower and protect those willing to stand against discrimination, fostering safer environments conducive to confrontation and change.

References

• Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and application. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 155-178.
• Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4p1), 377-383.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Kelman, H. C. (1958). Internalization of attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(1), 27-41.
• Arnson, C. P., et al. (2019). Hiding biases and prejudices in social contexts. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(2), 165–177.
• Spears, R. (2015). Social identity and intergroup behavior. In The Social Psychology of Group Identity (pp. 45-67). Oxford University Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Miller, R. L., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Handbook of research design and social measurement. SAGE Publications.
• Whatley, P. (2017). Organizational cultures and confronting bias in the workplace. Journal of Diversity Management, 12(4), 9-17.
• Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (2013). Self-presentation and its influences on confrontation of offensive comments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 923-935.