Social Psychology of Remember the Titans

Based upon the movie Remember The Titans and your books, choose 5 specific examples which show the following social psychology terms, concepts or theories:

• attribution theory
• fundamental attribution theory
• foot-in-the door phenomenon
• Cognitive dissonance
• chameleon effect
• normative social influence
• informational social influence
• Obedience
• social facilitation
• social loafing
• deindividuation
• group polarization
• groupthink
• ingroup bias
• scapegoat theory
•  frustration-aggression principle
• social scripts
• social traps
• altruism
• the bystander effect
• social exchange theory
• reciprocity norm
• social responsibility norm

     At the beginning of the movie Remember the Titans it is easy  to write it off as just another movie however this movie is based on reality and full of social psychology. Social Psychology is the scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another. In this blog I am going to talk about 5 points involved is social psychology that were present in this movie. The points I am going to talk about  are foot-in-the door phenomenon, social facilitation,deindividuation, ingroup bias, and  the scapegoat theory.

     The first point I am going to talk about is foot-in-the door phenomenon. The foot-in-the door phenomenon is the tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request  to comply later with a larger request. The foot-in-the door phenomenon builds off of a small request in order to reach the desired request. If someone starts off with requesting the desired result then usually the person's request will get turned down but if you start small and build then you will get your desired result. At the beginning  of Remember the Titans, Coach Boone's initial request was for the white and black students to play football together but as the movie progresses you start to see that he builds on to his initial request. While at football camp, Coach Boone makes each team member room with and get  to know everyone of the opposite race. Camp starts off with the whole team fighting and not wanting to integrate but at  the end of the week the majority of the team has come together as a whole to achieve both racial harmony and triumph. Once back home from football camp the Titans are harassed by everyone with racial prejudice but as the season goes on and the Titans are undefeated they slowly start to gain support from their community. By the end of the movie the Titans became an example for the rest of the community and slowly they started changing their ways as well. Coach Boone started off with a small request, asking them to play football, with bigger intentions and without the team knowing it they eventually complied with Coach Boone's desired request. 

     The second point I am going to talk about is social facilitation. Social facilitation is the tendency for people to be  aroused into better performance on simple tasks ( or tasks at which they are experts or that have become  autonomous)  when under the eye of others, rather than while  they are alone, or when they are working alongside others. In the previous paragraph i stated that at the beginning of the movie the Titans did not have support from the community but as the season progressed the community eventually began supporting the Titans. Although the Titans were undefeated throughout their entire season they began to improve once they started to receive support from the community. After the team got back from football camp they  were thrown back into society where nobody was willing to except the change like the Titans did. With the community's attitude and mindset he Titans had a lot to prove the community. Slowly the community's attitude started to take its toll on the Titans and their attitudes began to change as well.  However, unlike the community, the Titans saw what they were doing and the came together as a team again. The community eventually started to support the Titans and with e new support they started to play  even better. This new found support lead them to the state championships which they won. Although, the Titans were already undefeated their social facilitation changed when  they started getting the support from the community they needed to make it all the way.

     The third point I am going to talk about is deindividuation. Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situation that foster arousal and anonymity. No matter where you are at, to lose self-consciousness (to become deindividuated) is to become more responsive to the group experience. This happened a lot throughout the movie but i am going to use the example from the very beginning of the movie when the opposite  race threw a brick into another man 's of the opposite race storefront. The crowd outside started off as spectators but when  someone said a racial comment it proceeded into a riot. When that one comment was said the people immediately  jumped on it and they started to become deindividauted and they became responsive to the other rioters instead of their own thoughts and feelings.

    The fourth point I am going to talk about is in-group bias. In-group bias is the preferential treatment people give to those whom they perceive to be members of their own groups. While at football camp during lunch time Louie, a white football player, decided to sit at a table  full of black football players instead of at his own white lunch table. When asked why he sat down there he said hes on the defensive line and he don't see black in white. So, in Louie's eyes there was no difference and everybody was considered the "in-group." The  rest of the team soon took on  Louie's attitude after Coach Boone took the team  to the land on which the battle of Gettysburg took place on. The boys realize that they aren't much different from their team mates of the opposite race because they listen to the same music, share similar beliefs, and have common interests. Before football came there were two out-groups and two in-groups but once they came together as a whole they all became the in-group.

     The fifth and final point I am going to talk about is the scapegoat theory. The scapegoat theory is the theory that offers prejudice an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame. In the movie, Remember the Titans, the entire plot takes shape around the scapegoat theory. This is because the typical white person in the 70's hated the black population. The white population blamed everything on the black population and because of this riots broke out. The white people's outlet for their anger was to treat the black population like "crap" just because they had a different skin color. 

     

The Colony

OK.  For this weeks blog, you are to comment on the psychology of The Colony based upon what we have viewed so far.  In doing this you must discuss two examples from the series and explain their behavior from a psychological point of view.  Make certain you indicate which psychological view you are using with the appropriate vocabulary.  This will be due by November 6th.


     Thom Beers is the producer of The Colony and other various reality TV shows. So, based on the shows he produces, I would have to say that he most adheres to the views of a functionalist. This is because a functionalist main focus is how mental and behavioral processes enable the organism's to adapt, survive, and flourish. The Colony is a social experiment based on the psychology school of functionalist. I believe The Colony is an example of the functionalist school because 10 colonist are told there has been  a global catastrophe and those ten strangers are to rebuild and live together in the aftermath of the catastrophe. The colonist are placed together in a ten acre lot and have to use their mental and physical abilities to survive in this desolate area. Since, the colonist are strangers and come from all different back grounds their behavior also effects the way they survive. Their behavior will affect the colonist because in order to survive they will have to corporate and work together and if they don't the colony as a whole will suffer.
     The experimental aspect of The Colony is not only in the functionalist point of view but also in Darwin's natural selection aspect. Darwin believed that nature selects those that best enable an organism, in this case the colony, to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. In order for the colony to thrive the colonist have to survive in a harsh environment and "out smart" nature and figure out what to do in order to make livable conditions for not only themselves but also their new "family." Nature will eventually "select" the strongest colonist and those colonist will be crucial to the colony's living conditions. For example, Reno was able to build a windmill out of scraps which would help the colony  to generate electric. If nature hadn't "selected" Reno then the colonist wouldn't have power. This was an example of nature selecting someone to succeed. Nature also selects the "weak link" in the chain in hopes to make the chain stronger. An example of this is when Becka, the model, was kidnapped. Becka really didn't do anything in the colony to help it succeed so she was the weak link in the chain. Becka's being kidnapped helped strengthen the colony in a way because in order to get Becka back all of the colonist had to work together and it also opened Becka's eyes that the colony was a team effort. If she hadn't of wondered off by herself she would not of got kidnapped. Since, the colonist are now a family any thing one does affects the outcome of the colony as a whole.
     The final thing I am going to talk about is the ethical principles. One question that invades my mind when i watch this show is 'is this experiment on humans ethical.' In 1992 the American Psychological Association said it was OK to experiment on humans as long as the researcher obtain the informed consent of potential participants, protect them from harm and discomfort, treat information about individual participants confidential, and fully explain the research afterwards. Before the colonist are selected to be on the show they have to sign legal documents that state the participant knows what they are getting into and they give their written and verbal consent to anything that's involved in the show. However, I have troubles believing that the participants are kept out of harms way. During the show the colonist are confronted face to face several times with a hostile group of people. The others are also apart of this experiment and are told to "fight" with the colonist and take their supplies making in harder for the colonist to survive. In order to achieve their mission the others use pepper spray and other "weapons" which eventually harms the colonist. Some of the colonist's get extremely sick because of this so I have to think that they took this part of the experiment to far and endangered the lives of the colonists.

Born a Boy:Raised a Girl

Based upon one of the films we watched in class you are to reflect on either the story of David Reimer or Genie, the Wild Child. (Note that if you missed any part you can go to youtube.com to view them.) For your reflection you must summarize the general story.  Then you must summarize the theory(ies) studied in the films.  In your summarization indicate the type of research and methods used.  Lastly reflect on the ethics in the particular case, citing specific guidelines discussed in the prologue of your book, and your insights.  This is a 30 point assignment so blog thoroughly and thoughtfully.

       David Reimer was born on August 22nd 1965 as Bruce Reimer with his twin brother Brian Reimer. Their parents had decided not to circumcise the boys but rather leave it the way it was. But, the boys soon started developing problems concerning urinating. And, by the time the boys were six months old they were diagnosed with Phimosis. They were referred for circumcision at the age of eight months and on April 27th 1966 both boys were circumcised. However, during the procedure the doctor burnt Bruce Reimers penis beyond surgical repair. This was because the doctors decided to use the undeveloped method of cauterization instead of the original method. Bruce's parents were so distraught about what happen that they took guidance from Dr. John Money, a psychologist from John Hopkin's Hospital in Baltimore Maryland. Dr. Money was slowly becoming a pioneer in the field of sexual development and gender identity and he believed that gender identity was a learned social reaction and not innate. Money told the Reimers that Bruce's penis could not be replaced but he could surgically construct a working vagina and they could raise Bruce as a girl. So, after many months of probing, provoking, and procession the Reimers decided to go ahead with Dr. Money's surgery. So, at the age of 22months Bruce's testicle's were removed and he was reassigned to live as a girl. Bruce was given the name Brenda and his parents began raising him as a female instead of a male. Brenda and her parents went back to see Dr. John Money once every year for follow-up visits but Brenda's male identity of Bruce remained a secret to her. After several visits Money began reporting successful female gender development, and using Brenda’s case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. At the age of thirteen Brenda began saying her visits with money were more traumatic for her than therapeutic so when Dr. Money began pressuring Brenda’s parents about letting him do the surgical vagina construction they discontinued their visits with him. In progress reports on Brenda's case money reported that Brenda was a happy functional working girl and she exhibited no boyish behavior. But, in reality Dr. Money's "perfect" case study was proving him wrong. From the time Brenda first had the surgery she was showing aggressive behavior similar to that of a young boys behavior and throughout her childhood she could not recognize with the other girls nor with the boys. So, at the age of 15 her parents decided to tell her about her secret identity, Bruce. After Brenda found out the truth she began reliving her life as a male again taking on the name David Reimer. In 1997 he underwent surgical treatment to reverse the rearrangement he had received as a baby. David got married to a woman and became a stepfather to her three children and for once in David's life he was happy and everything was fine. But, that only lasted for a very short lived time. David's own twin brother had developed schizophrenia after finding out the truth about Brenda's true identity. And, in 2002 Brian overdosed on antidepressants. David also had to deal with losing his job and on May 2nd, 2004 David's wife told him she wanted to temporarily separate. With his life Spiraling out of control David decided to end his life. So, on May 5th, 2004 David killed himself with a fatal blow to the head with a shotgun in a local grocery store parking lot.
Dr. John Money’s main theory he was trying to support that gender is a learned social reaction and not innate. In this particular case Money was proven wrong even though he still continued to make the world believe he was right. This case is an example of an experimental research because this case had a control variable- David’s identical twin brother-, an independent variable- David’s female identity-, a dependent variable- how David changed from his boy behavior to the girl behavior-, and a an experimental factor- David. This case was considered the perfect experimental case study because David had a twin brother so they could base all the information and reactions they noticed form Brenda to those of his brothers.
With this case brought with it many questions concerning ethnics. In the year 1992 the American Psychological Association stated it was ethical to experiment on people as long as they 1.) obtain the informed consent of potential participants, 2.) protect them from harm and discomfort, 3.) treat information about individual participants confidentially, and 4.) fully explain the research. Based on these four rules about ethics and researching on humans, Dr. John Money’s research was not ethical. Yes, he obtained consent from David’s parents, who were his legal guardians at the time, however, he did not protect David from harm or discomfort, he did not keep the information private, and he certainly didn’t explain the the research fully. There is no way to prove that David was harmed or not protected but both he and his twin Brian have reported that Dr. John Money would make them undress and pose for pictures in provocative stances. When the boys would refused they stated that Money would become so belligerent that they feared for their lives. The boys were so scared that they didn’t tell their parents. The second reason his research wasn’t ethical because he didn’t keep the doctor patient confidentially agreement. Throughout his research Money would “leak” information on David’s case. He did this to advance his career and theory. The final reason it wasn’t ethical is because the research wasn’t fully explained. Money explained the process and research to David’s parent but wanted to keep David in the dark about his true identity. By not telling David about his true identity he broke ethical rule number four because he didn’t explain the full concept of his research.
My views on Dr. John Money's research is that its completely unethical. However, i do some what agree with his theory that gender is a social learned reaction rather than innate. When a person is first conceived the father is responsible for giving the baby a x or y chromosome which determines the baby's sex. Depending on the chromosome the baby receives an instruction "book" for their genetic make up. The "book"  is filled with sex hormones (testosterone for males and estrogen for  females) and social instructions on how to act. I believe that the sexual instruction "book" determines a person's sex nine times out of ten but like Money i believe that the "book" can be altered. My beliefs aren't as strong as Money's because i also believe in the traditional theory, that gender is innate, also. I believe gender can be altered because there are cases that prove gender can be altered. Transgender's are a perfect example of this. Transgender means that a person is born one sex but does not identify with ones own gender identity but rather the opposite gender. Although, they were born one way their gender identity didn't match their sex. Transgender usually results in a complete sex change ad after  that the person is usually happy. Their sex and identity was altered because it did not match up with their innate given one. Another example is a one person home or a home with the same sex parents. Men who grow up in a home with only a mother usually have more feminine aspects to them because that's all they know. Since, there was no father in the home the only role model was the mother(s) so this could cause the person's gender to alter to where they identify better with the opposite sex resulting in either having very feminine qualities or homosexuality. This also works with girls growing up in a house with only a father figure. This doesn't always affect the children's gender but it has been proven that the children's gender identity is usually effected.
      

The Awakening.

In the movie "The Awakening" Dr.Sayer did an experimental case study on Leonard who was a catatonic patient. Before Dr.Sayer received the job at the hospital all of the other doctor's had pretty much given up on Leonard and the others like him because the other doctors didn't think that Leonard and the others were responsive. But, it was Dr.Sayer that came to realization that with certain stimuli Leonard responded. Leonard was able to catch a ball thrown at him, recognize familiar music, and communicate with Dr.Sayer by using a Ouija board. After attending a seminar about the use of the drug L-Dopa on Parkinson's disease, Sayer soon's starts to think that maybe the drug will have an affect on his catatonic patients. Dr.Sayer decides to use the drug and do a trial on Leonard which causes him to completely awaken from his catatonic state. Since, the drug had such an astounding effect on Leonard Dr.Sayer gave the drug to the other catatonic patients which gave them the same result as it had with Leonard. In this case study the L-Dopa drug acted as an agonist which caused the drug to mimic a neurotransmitter that the body lacked. In doing so the drug took the place of the neurotransmitter. Since, the drug took the place of the original neurotransmitter this eventually caused the brain to stop producing other neurotransmitter as well as the one the drug replaced. The drug flooded the brain with too many chemicals causing the original positive effects to back fire on itself thus causing the brain and Leonard to go back into their original catatonic state. I personally think that Dr.Sayer did put Leonard in harm but i also believe that Dr.Sayer's behavior was ethical and not meant to cause harm to Leonard. This is because this case study took place in the late 1960's and not a lot of research and studies had been done on this drug or on the effects. Dr.Sayer had no way of knowing the outcome of the drug. So, Dr.Sayer really thought he was helping Leonard and not harming him. If Dr.Sayer hadn't of done his case studies on Leonard using the L-Dopa drug we may still not know the full effects of using an agonist drug. This particular study may of endangered and hurt a few patients but in a way it saved many other patients lives.