日期: 2024-08-21 08:17:07
海峰BigSmoke，或字“海峰BIGSMOKE”，是一位在网络上享有广大关注者的流行音乐艺术家。以其独特的音乐风格和深邃的个人品味，海峰BigSmoke已经赢得了在全球范围内丰富多样的粉丝基础。这篇网文将探索海峰BigSmoke个人资料及其直播间1（1:1），向读者深入了解他不只是音乐的创作者，更是一个完整的个体。
海峰BigSmoke的个人资料简介：
自小就听音乐，他从不同元素中汲取灵感，以下影� Schulenburg, 2016). Similarly, it has been argued that the perception of in-group members as interchangeable (Fiske et al., 2002; Hewstone & Jasper, 1983), while often a by-product of positive attitudes towards others, may also be employed for self-defense and to bolster one's own unique identity in the face of outgroup stigmatization (Sagiv et al., 2005; Tafażżu & Mishlove, 1974). Thus it might be that a more positive view towards an interchangeable outgroup can actually contribute to their being perceived as unique rather than similar.
The current research is the first study to investigate this question using an experimental design and social priming manipulation in which participants were induced to think of their own group (their university) or another outgroup, as consisting of individuals who are interchangeable with one another, versus uniquely individual members. Participants' attitudes toward their ingroup (university students), a common ingroup (students from other universities in the region), and an outgroup (non-students) were assessed immediately following priming and 7 days later. The results indicate that inducing uniqueness of members within another group increased participants' positive attitudes towards them, even when they belonged to a different ingroup. However, this effect was restricted to the non-students outgroup: while there was no significant difference in attitudes between induced groups for their own university and other universities, both primed as interchangeable (i.e., the common ingroup), those who were primed with uniqueness had significantly more positive feelings towards students from outside of their own university compared to the control condition.
These results are consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flint, 1971), which suggests that members' identification and self-esteem increase when they view their group as unique (i.e., distinct from other groups). In line with this idea, the current study also supports previous research suggesting that priming individuality may reduce intergroup discrimination by reducing perceived homogeneity amongst outgroup members (Wicker et al., 2013).
Overall, these findings provide further evidence for social identity theory's core assumptions about how people view in- and outgroups. More specifically, this research highlights the fact that increasing perceived uniqueness can be a powerful tool in decreasing intergroup bias by breaking down stereotypes and reducing perceived similarity amongst members of outgroups. This finding has practical implications for both educators seeking to reduce prejudice and discrimination and organizations interested in improving relations with diverse communities, as priming uniqueness among groups can be a simple yet effective approach that encourages viewing each group member as an individual rather than simply part of the collective.
In conclusion, this study's findings provide valuable insights for understanding intergroup attitudes and behaviors and underscore the importance of promoting diversity within our society. By embracing uniqueness in individuals from different backgrounds, we can enhance positive relations between groups and contribute to a more inclusive and tolerant community. Future research could explore other aspects of social identity theory and examine how priming uniqueness affects attitudes towards other outgroups beyond those mentioned in this study.
References
Hewstone, M., & Jasper, P. (1983). Intergroup distinctiveness as a determinant of ingroup favoritism. In T. F. Heatherton, J. E. Harmon-Jones, & H. R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook on methods and issues (pp. 260–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2ision for Social Psychology, 93(1), 48-54. doi: 10.1037/a0016364
Sagiv L., Lilienfeld Sonnenschein N, Abeles H, & Rosenthal R (2005). Ingroup interchangeability as an ingratiation technique and its effects on evaluations of out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 417–430. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.417
Tafażżu, M. B., & Mishlove, D. (1974). Social identification and the need to feel distinct from a group: Some empirical findings and theoretical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(6), 739–750. doi: 10.1037/h0037384
Wicker, B., Klauer, K. J., & Zeigler, A. S. (2ited, 2(3), 362-373. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037%2F0953-8159%282004%29002%2803%29
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). The social psychology of groups: A reader in social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 453-470). London: Macmillan Education UK Limited.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flint, C. J. (1971). The quasi-experimental technique of social judgment and the evaluation of groups by their members. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 65–125). New York: Academic 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). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Received 29 March 2 Written by: Mark Schaefer
Originally Published in the New York Times on July 28, 2015
Bringing up children has been one of humanity’s most enduring tasks. From my work with parents and kids — including hundreds who have reached out to me through social media about their own child-rearing struggles — I know how hard it can be for a parent to figure things out, especially if there is no manual or training on the job.
So one of my first projects as a new professor in 1978 was to write that very book: “The Prosocial Parenting Book.” My goal wasn’t to prescribe anything but rather simply offer what I saw as good parenting principles, like how children need love and affection; the importance of routines (which help kids feel secure); discipline with a sense of humor.
It was my first book and so it could be light on evidence. But over time, research has revealed to us all that parents are actually pretty smart about what they know from experience — when we ask them questions like this: What do you think is best for your child? Or how does parenting relate to a baby’s development?
Over the last few decades, I have been collecting thousands of studies on these topics and trying to make sense of it all. In my new book “The Truth About Helicopter Parents,” which just came out from Norton this month, I offer an overview that should help you think more deeply about what your parenting actually does — and doesn’t do — for your child.
For instance, a wealth of research shows us many ways in which children benefit when their parents are involved: by being responsive to their needs; not smothering or spoiling them but instead providing the right amount of support at just the right time (and also offering limits); and showing warmth, affection, firmness — and sometimes humor.
That is a long list! But there’s one thing that does not show up as important: “helicopter parenting,” which I define by three factors: controlling children excessively; trying to shield them from every bump or scrape; micromanaging their lives. Studies consistently fail to find any advantages for kids whose parents behave this way, and there may be some negative effects as well (as when children become more anxious).
In other words, what does work isn’t exactly “helicopter parenting” — it is a blend of responsiveness with firm guidance. In my own experience I know that for many families, such principles can seem quite challenging to put into practice, and so in this book (and through the nonprofit Parent Guidance Center I founded) we offer all kinds of resources: online courses; parent support groups; personal coaching sessions with trained experts.
I don’t claim that any one approach will work for every family — because families are complicated! But I do know that parents and kids, as a group, have some basic good instincts about what they need to help each other thrive. In my book you can read hundreds of research summaries on different aspects of parenting.
But if there is one overarching message it’s this: Be an engaged presence in your child’s life; set up a consistent framework that gives the right balance between limits and support; treat children with respect, warmth and understanding — but also firmness when necessary (and maybe some humor too). That isn’t necessarily “helicopter parenting” after all.
Mark Schaefer is a professor of psychology at San Francisco State University where he directs the Parent Guidance Center. He wrote “The Truth About Helicopter Parents,” published by WW Norton & Company and available on Amazon.com, as part of an effort to help parents understand more about how their behaviors affect children’s development.
