Understanding Components of Pluralistic Ignorance and Changes in Perception through Aggression: A Mixed-Method Study

Öz

The primary goal of the research is to understand the social representations of aggression among university students. Its secondary aim is to examine the factors in the change of these representations and their effects on change. For this purpose, a two-stage mixed-method study was conducted. In our study, which included 125 people (72 women, 55 men) in the first stage, the concept of "pluralistic ignorance" was investigated in understanding the social representations of aggression. In the second phase, with 122 participants (71 females and 51 males), social representations of an article writer aimed at breaking down pluralistic ignorance were examined. In the first stage, the demographic characteristics of the person exhibiting the aggressive behavior, and the columnist predicted to be effective in the change of perception were quantitatively analyzed, and social representations were examined qualitatively. Finally, the effect of the demographic characteristics of the author and the degree of granting and sincere right to the author in the change of perception regarding aggression was examined through a model. Quantitative findings point to the presence of pluralistic ignorance in participants regardless of gender. In the change of perception, it was observed that the levels of "author's age", "authorizing the author" and finding the author sincere "were effective. Results; He points out that while participants exaggerate the similarity between themselves and the society in their perceptions of aggressive behavior, they tend to underestimate the similarity of the aggressive individual.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• agression
• pluralistic ignorence
• social representation
• change of perception

ÇOĞULCU CEHALET VE ALGI DEĞİŞİMİ BİLEŞENLERİNİN SALDIRGANLIK ÜZERİNDEN ANLAŞILMASI: KARMA YÖNTEMLİ ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Çalışmamızın birincil amacı, üniversite öğrencileri arasında saldırganlığa yönelik sosyal temsilleri anlamaktır. İkincil amacı ise bu temsillerin değişimindeki faktörleri ve değişim üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. Bu amaçla iki aşamalı karma yöntemli bir çalışma yürütülmüştür. İlk aşamada 125 kişinin (72 kadın, 55 erkek) katıldığı çalışmamızda saldırganlığa yönelik sosyal temsillerin anlaşılmasında “çoğulcu cehalet” kavramı araştırılmıştır. 122 kişinin (71 kadın 51 erkek) katıldığı ikinci aşamada çoğulcu cehaleti kırmaya yönelik bir makale yazarına ilişkin sosyal temsiller incelenmiştir. İlk aşamada saldırgan davranışı sergileyen kişiye ve algı değişiminde etkili olacağı öngörülen köşe yazarına ilişkin demografik özelikler nicel, sosyal temsiller nitel olarak incelenmiştir. Son olarak ise yazara ait demografik özellikler ile yazara hak verme ve samimi bulma derecesinin saldırganlığa ilişkin algının değişiminde ne derece etkili olduğu bir model aracılığıyla incelenmiştir. Niceliksel bul¬gular, cinsiyet farkı göstermeksizin katılımcılarda çoğulcu cehaletin varlığına işaret etmektedir. Algı değişiminde ise “yazarın yaşı”, “yazara hak verme” ve yazarı samimi bulma” düzeylerinin etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuçlar; katılımcıların saldırgan davranışa yönelik algılarında, kendisi ve toplum arasındaki benzerliği abartırken, saldırganlık sergileyen bireye ilişkin benzerliğini hafife alma eğiliminde olduklarını işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• saldırganlık
• çoğulcu cehalet
• sosyal temsiller
• algı değişimi

Kaynakça

1. Adaman, F. ve Ardıç, O. P. (2008). Social exclusion in the slum areas of large cities in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 38(38), 29-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S089663460000491X.
2. Anderson, C. A. ve Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
3. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Bandura, A.(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
5. Baumeister, R. F., ve Tice, D. M. (1990). Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of social and clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195.
6. Berkowitz, L. (1988). Frustrations, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression, Aggressive Behavior, 14, 3-11.
7. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (1), 59-73.
8. Bushman, B. J. ve Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review. 108 (1), 273–79.

9. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley
10. Ceylan, S., Doğulu, C., ve Akbaş, G. (2016). Namus adına kadına yönelik şiddete dair sosyal temsiller: Karma yöntemli bir çalışma. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 19, 64-72.
11. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
12. Cirhinlioglu, F., Aktas, V. ve Öner-Özkan, B. (2006). Sosyal Temsil Kuramına genel bir bakış. C.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30(2), 163-174.
13. Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H. ve Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression
14. Duffy, K. (1995). Social exclusion and human dignity in Europe: Background report for the proposed initiative by the Council of Europe. Brussels: Council of Europe.
15. Dunning, D., Van Boven, L., ve Loewenstein, G. (2001). Egocentric empathy gaps in social interaction and exchange. Advances in group processes, 18, 65-97.
16. Eagly, A. H., ve Carli, L. L. (2012). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Contemporary issues in leadership, 147-162.
17. Fields, J. M., ve Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4), 427-448.
18. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., ... ve Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 517.
19. Freud, S. (1922). Beyond the pleasure principle. In C. Hubback (ÇEv.); E., Jones (Ed.). International Psychoanalytical Library, 4, (pp. 1-83). London: International psycho-analytical Press.
20. Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., ve Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: the implicit bystander effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 843.
21. Geiger, N., ve Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79-90.
22. Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., ve Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 452–463.
23. Geter, A., Sutton, M. Y., ve Hubbard McCree, D. (2018). Social and structural determinants of HIV treatment and care among black women living with HIV infection: a systematic review: 2005–2016. AIDS care, 30(4), 409-416.
24. Grekul, J. (1999). Pluralistic ignorance in a prison community. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(4), 513-534.
25. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women?. Trans-action, 5(5), 28-30.
26. Goldberg, P. 1968. Are women projudiced against women? In Edward Krupat (ed.) Readings and conversations in social Psychology: Psychology is Social.
27. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1975, s. 74—77.
28. Hasta, D. (2017). Saldırganlık: Kişilerarası ilişki tarzları ve empati açısından bir inceleme. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1).
29. Heider, F. (1958). Psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
30. Jones, E. E. ve Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and observer: Divergent perceptions of causes of behavior. E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S.
31. Valins ve B. Weiner (Der.) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (s. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
32. Kauffman, K. (1981). Prison officers' attitudes and perceptions of attitudes: A case of pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2), 272-294.
33. Katz, E. (1981). Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on ‘the spiral of silence’. In Öffentliche Meinung und sozialer Wandel/Public Opinion and Social Change (pp. 28-38). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
34. Latané, B., ve Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88(5), 438.
35. Latkin, C. A., Forman, V., Knowlton, A., ve Sherman, S. (2003). Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Social science ve medicine, 56(3), 465-476.
36. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., ve Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and social psychology review, 10(2), 111-132.
37. Levenson, H., Burford, B., Bonno, B., ve Davis, L. (1975). Are women still prejudiced against women? A replication and extension of Goldberg's study. The journal of Psychology, 89(1), 67-71.
38. Levine, J. M., ve Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 585-634.
39. Loeber, R., ve Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53(2), 242.
40. Miller, D. T., ve McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 53(2), 298.
41. Miller, D. T., ve McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In J. M. Suls ve T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Miller, D. T. ve Prentice, D. (1994). Collective errors and errors about the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 541-550.
43. Miller, D. T., ve Nelson, L. (2002). Seeing approach motivation in the avoidance behavior of others: Implications for an understanding of pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1066–1075.
44. Morrison, K. R., ve Miller, D. T. (2008). Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: Not all deviants feel marginal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 871–882
45. Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representa¬tions. R. Farr ve S. Moscovici, (Ed.), Social representa¬tions içinde (3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
46. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211-250.
47. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1977). Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(2), 143–158.
48. O’Gorman, H. (1975). Pluralistic ignorance and White estimates of White support for racial segregation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 313–330.
49. O’Gorman, H. (1979). White and Black perception of racial values. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 48–59.
50. O’Gorman, H., ve Garry, S. (1976). Pluralistic ignorance—A replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 449–458.
51. Packard, J. S., ve Willower, D. J. (1972). Pluralistic ignorance and pupil control ideology. Journal of Education Administration, 10, 78-87.
52. Pheterson, G. I., Kiesler, S. B., ve Goldberg, P. A. (1971). Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(1), 114.
53. Prentice, D. A., ve Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243.
54. Prentice, D. A., ve Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161-209). Academic Press.
55. Prentice, D. A., ve Miller, D. T. (2002). The emergence of homegrown stereotypes. American Psychologist, 57, 352–359.
56. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcoming: Distortions in the attribition process. L. Berkowitz (Der.), Advances in experimental social psychology (cilt 10, s. 174-221). New York: Academic Press
57. Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., ve Lariscy, R. A. W. (1998). Pluralistic ignorance and professional standards: Underestimating professionalism of our peers in public relations. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 1-19.
58. Schanck, R. L. (1932). A study of a community and its groups and institutions conceived of as behaviors of individuals. Psychological Monographs, 43(2),
59. Schroeder, C. M. ve Prentice, D. A. (1998). Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2150-2180.
60. Seara-Cardoso, A., Dolberg, H., Neumann, C., Roiser, J. P., ve Viding, E. (2013). Empathy, morality and psychopathic traits in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 328-333.
61. Shelton, J. N., ve Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(1), 91.
62. Siever, L. J. (2008). Neurobiology of aggression and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(4), 429-442.
63. Silver, H. (1995). Reconceptualizing social disadvantages: Three paradigms of social exclusion. G. Rodgers, C. Gore ve J. B. Figueiredo (Ed.), Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality and responses. International Institute for Labour Studies.
64. Smith, L. C., Lucas, K. J., ve Latkin, C. (1999). Rumor and gossip: Social discourse on HIV and AIDS. Anthropology and Medicine, 6(1), 121–131.
65. Stamarski, C. S., ve Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision-makers’ sexism. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1400.
66. Sümer N (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 3 (6): 49-74.
67. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon
68. Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion.
69. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., ve Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
70. Ward, C. (1981). Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why?. Sex Roles, 7(2), 163-171.
71. Wheeler, S. (1961), “Role conflict in correctional communities”, in Cressey, D. (Ed.), The Prison: Studies in Institutional Organization and Change, Holt, New York, NY.
72. Whitehead, J. T., Blankenship, M. B., ve Wright, J. P. (1999). Elite versus citizen attitudes on capital punishment: Incongruity between the public and policymakers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(3), 249-258.
73. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., ve Dunning, D. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions. Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 130–141.
74. Van Grootel, S., Van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., Schmader, T., ve Sczesny, S. (2018). Uncovering pluralistic ignorance to change men’s communal self-descriptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1344.
75. Van Honk, J., Schutter, D. J., Bos, P. A., Kruijt, A. W., Lentjes, E. G., ve Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on the second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3448-3452.
76. Vandello, J. A., Ransom, S., Hettinger, V. E., ve Askew, K. (2009). Men’s misperceptions about the acceptability and attractiveness of aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1209-1219.
77. Vatandaş, C. (2007). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Cinsiyet Rollerinin Algılanışı. Sosyoloji Konferansları, (35), 29-56.
78. Zillmann, D. (1988). Cognition-Excitation interdependencies in aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 51-64.