Research Articles Base: Social Cognition

Social Cognition

Introduction             Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decrease availability to those less than 18 years of age resulted in a law that requires proof of age to purchase cigarettes. Cigarette smoking by women is also a growing health concern. However, enforcement is far from being met. In many public places, smoking is allowed and even minor aged individuals can smoke. The decision to smoke may be reflective of self-concept issues and may be culturally influenced. Awareness of risk factors is essential for implementation of preventive health care in a variety of health care settings. This paper will discuss the situation of Susan, a 45 year old single female who tried to quit cigarette smoking many times but failed. She has become frustrated and thinks she might never give up smoking. This discussion will focus on schemas, the self, and attribution theory, and relate it as factors that might be responsible for Susan’s failure to quit smoking and her thoughts and feelings in response to this situation.   Smoking Cessation Programs             Success in response to public health education is more likely in professional and managerial persons and in those best able to intelligently appreciate the risks associated with smoking. Unfortunately, most smokers do not usually stop smoking until the onset of ill health. Withdrawal effects, possibly related to nicotine deprivation, include depression, anxiety, irritability, insomnia, and weight gain. Hypnosis, aversion therapy, group therapy, and special smoking withdrawal clinics have helped individuals break their smoking habit, but the overall value of these aids is uncertain. Persons unable to stop cigarette smoking should be encouraged to change to a less dangerous method of smoking such as using pipes or cigars, or filter-tipped cigarettes with a low tar and nicotine content. The risk may be also reduced by smoking fewer cigarettes, inhaling less, leaving a longer stub, and taking fewer puffs/cigarettes (Pampel, 2005).             Motivated by health concerns, spurred on by social pressure, and aided by efficacious treatments, many smokers have managed to stop smoking. For a certain group of smokers, however, this outcome has been short-lived, as within months, weeks, or even days for some, a relapse to smoking occurs. Indeed, it has been documented that 1 year after a quit attempt, about 90% of would-be ex-smokers will have gone back to smoking (Covey & Seidman, 1999, p.175). Various organizations have put up campaigns against smoking. Yet not all of them do work. Governments alone cannot set up a successful campaign against smoking. Thus we see many private organizations that also help in campaigns against smoking.             Susan’s case is just one of the many cases about individuals who wish to stop smoking yet aren’t able to. Their need to smoke may be attributed to factors related to the self. Susan will probably need professional help regarding her smoking problem and an understanding of self is needed for a successful treatment.   Psychotherapeutic Approach             Because women’s lives are more punctuated, sociobiologically speaking, than are men’s — by menarche and menopause, by the monthly cycle of ovulation and bleeding, by pregnancy and childbirth, and by the accompanying assaults of these life changes on body image — looking at women as a block may blur differences in women’s smoking cessation needs across the life cycle. The special needs of women at different life stages will require much more attention if smoking cessation programs are to be maximally helpful to women smokers. Nevertheless, sufficient research has been done in a few aspects of the female life cycle to offer at least some guidance to the clinician (Covey & Seidman, 1999, p.74).             In Susan’s case, she would need a psychotherapeutic approach to her smoking problem. A psychotherapeutic approach for smoking cessation uses cognitive, supportive, and expressive therapeutic techniques that are generally delivered in an active, directive therapeutic style (Covey & Seidman, 1999, p.182). This approach will focus in an individual’s self-concept and views regarding smoking. Why people smoke and smokers’ views about smoking are issues that have attracted much attention within the last few years. Some researchers have focused on the role of peers and of parents. Other researchers have asked smokers to attribute their smoking to different reasons–for example, pleasure, relaxation, or weight control. These researchers have often been guided by attribution theory and, specifically, by the fundamental attribution error. When this theory has been applied to smokers, researchers have predicted that smokers would attribute their own smoking to external causes (e.g., peers, advertisements, pleasure), whereas nonsmokers would attribute people’s smoking to internal causes (Jenks, 1994). The therapy is change oriented, sequenced, and time limited.             The organizing principle of this therapeutic approach is the assumption that cigarette smoking is maintained by the (emotionally dependent) patient’s tendency to use cigarettes in the service of denying painful feelings. The consequence of this self-medicating tendency, which is sustained by the psychoactive nature of nicotine, is a learned and practiced inability to recognize feelings and to respond adaptively to the stressful, emotionally arousing events, large or small, of everyday life. The emotionally dependent smoker will often be emotionally unaware, constricted in emotional experience, and lacking in appropriate coping mechanisms (Covey & Seidman, 1999, p.180). The protection motivation theory also supports the psychotherapeutic approach to the problem of smoking. Protection motivation theory states that health information (e.g., cigarette health warnings) elicits both appraisal of the threat and appraisal of coping techniques; both cognitive processes involve (a) either maladaptive or adaptive responses and (b) variables that increase or decrease the probability of those responses. People use the threat-appraisal process to evaluate the variables associated with the potentially harmful (maladaptive) response. Intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards increase the probability of the maladaptive response; severity of and personal vulnerability to the danger decrease the probability of the maladaptive response. By using the coping-appraisal process, a person evaluates his or her ability to cope with and avert the threat (adaptive response). The efficacy of the response and one’s ability to perform it increase the likelihood of the adaptive response, whereas response costs decrease the probability of the adaptive response (Ho, 1998). In the case of smoking, the likelihood of smoking is decreased by (a) belief in the severity of the diseases caused by smoking, (b) belief in one’s vulnerability to those diseases, (c) belief that smoking cessation is an effective way to avoid the diseases, and (d) belief that one can successfully stop smoking. On the other hand, the likelihood of cigarette smoking is increased by intrinsic rewards (e.g., physical satisfaction), extrinsic rewards (e.g., peer approval), and the costs of an adaptive response (e.g., enduring withdrawal symptoms). This would mean that aside from smoking being affected by emotions, it is also affected by cognition. According to this model, the increased likelihood of an adaptive response (not smoking) depends primarily on four cognitive perceptions. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection. Strong beliefs about these four variables arouse protection motivation; consequently, individuals are more likely to change their attitudes and subsequently to adopt the health behavior which is smoking cessation in this case (Ho, 1998).             A key concept underlying this psychotherapeutic approach for the hardcore smoker dependent on emotion and cognition is the notion that it is not negative affect itself but rather the inability to cope with negative affect that presents an impediment to sustained abstinence. This explanatory model is rooted in the emotionally dependent smoker’s history of conveniently using cigarette smoking as a “psychological tool” with which to self-medicate painful feelings. Although the long-term benefit of using smoking to cope with negative feelings is questionable, the pharmacology of nicotine, a drug with multiple psychoactive effects, and the pharmacokinetics of smoked nicotine do make it plausible that feelings of anxiety, depression, or anger are attenuated at the time the cigarette is smoked. Although short-lived, this balming quality of smoking behavior is reinforcing, leading to its repetition whenever such negative affects are experienced, and ultimately to a state of emotional dependence on smoking. It is possible that this process begins early in the person’s smoking career, as suggested by the evidence that the relationship between being a regular smoker and depression starts as early as during the adolescent years (Covey & Seidman, 1999, p.181).             Following this line of thinking, the therapeutic challenge presented by the emotionally dependent smoker can be conceptualized on multiple levels. The presenting complaint is persistent, compulsive smoking, with an inability to sustain abstinence. With a high level of motivation, a pharmacological agent, and behavioral counseling, Susan may actually be able to stop on a given quit day.             Just as in the case of Susan, most smokers seemed torn: On the one hand, they saw smoking as extremely bad and were harsher about themselves than they were about others; on the other hand, they believed they could not change their smoking behavior because they perceived themselves as psychologically addicted. To change their habit, they would need to participate in programs that present adequate alternatives for relaxation and address psychological addiction (Jenks, 1994).             Promoting a positive self-concept in older adults like Susan is therefore essential, but it is especially important for those experiencing disability or frailty. Conducting a life review or participating in a reminiscence group, recording an oral history, or arranging a photo scrapbook of meaningful life events are examples of activities that can be suggested to Susan to help her feel a sense of self-worth about the life lived, as well as help take her mind off cigarette smoking (Eliopoulos, 2001).             Potential threats to the self-esteem of older adults such as Susan may arise from the institutional environments where they receive their care. These threats can include dependence, devaluation, depersonalization, functional impairments, and lack of control over one’s environment. These threats could create stress in the individual and thus they resort to smoking as release and due to these factors have a hard time quitting smoking even if they desperately want to. Susan’s difficulty in stopping smoking is somehow related to her self-concept. Self-concept may be negatively affected in older adults secondary to a number of life changes, including health problems, declining socioeconomic status, spousal loss or bereavement, loss of social support, and decline in achievement experiences (Stuart & Laraia, 2001, p.235).   Conclusion             There is a counseling approach for emotion and cognition dependent smokers, broadly defined as that subset of smokers whose inability to stop smoking is determined by emotional and cognitive factors. Despite Susan’s strong wish to stop smoking and multiple attempts to do so, her efforts are stymied by the emergence of distressful and painful feelings that they attempt to alleviate through smoking cigarettes. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings about smoking cessation by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection within the individual. Strong beliefs about these variables can arouse protection motivation; consequently, Susan will be more likely to change her attitudes and subsequently to stop smoking.               References   Bentall, R.P. 1998. Theory-of-mind Deficits and Causal Attributions. British Journal of Psychology. Covey, L.S. & Seidman, D.F. 1999. Helping the Hard-Core Smoker: A Clinician’s Guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eliopoulos, C. 2001. Gerontologic Nursing. Lippincott. Ho, R. 1998. The Intention to Give Up Smoking: Disease Versus Social Dimensions. The Journal of Social Psychology. Jenks, R.J. 1994. Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Smoking: Smokers’ Views of Themselves and other Smokers. The Journal of Social Psychology. Pampel, F.C. 2005. Mortality Attributable to Cigarette Smoking in the United States. Population and Development Review. Stuart, G.W. & Laraia, M.T. Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing. Mosby. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Social Cognition

Introduction Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decrease availability...

Social Semiotics seeks to explain meaning-making as a social practice

Social semiotics is a useful tool in understanding our world.   An offshoot of the study of sign processes or semiotics, social semiotics seeks to explain meaning-making as a social practice. Human appears to be the single identifying figure in processes of signification and interpretation, shaping both individuals and the society. According to one of the principal philosophers of social semiotics, (1991), social semiotics greatly deals with social meaning-making practices which are of visual, verbal or aural nature with direct systems or channels known to be as semiotic modes. Such modes vary and could include visual, verbal, written and gesture among others, by which could be also combined hence multimodality.  (1991) also noted that social semiotics directly purport on developing analytical and theoretical frameworks which can explain meaning-making from a social perspective. Social semiotics then is simply the social dimensions of meaning. A problematic and conflict-laden philosophy that emerged, social semiotics had made its way on the forefront of debates. In this paper, opposing views about social semiotics will be discussed.     Social semiotics proponents                (1991) is one among the many who proposed social semiotic going beyond its idealistic foundation as a ‘science of signs.’ The author asserts that social semiotics is an intervention in the theory and practice of semiotics, emphasizing the practice-oriented view wherein the very practice of making sense of social semiotic systems is indeed a social meaning making practice. He also noted that people are not above or external to the meanings and social practices which constitute ones object of theory making. There is an explicit ‘necessitation of teleological and causal explanations wherein the psychosocial functionalism of the speaker’s needs, goals and purposes are could be rejected.’ The social practice points to the fact that meanings and practices are rationalized on the basis of system’s goals and purposes. This simply means that when people attach meaning to an object they consider a wide interplay among involved systems.  (1991) also made mention that such theoretical and analytical practices are critical elements of contextual relations and social semiotics practices.                  Social semiotics, for , is a set of meaning making practices that is always immanent when it comes to ‘exchanges and interactions of some wide social formation along with regulatory and deregulatory functions.’ When it comes to social semiotics, immanence could be regarded in two ways where practices are always constituted in praxis (or established practice) and reconstitute social foundations on unified social semiotic practice. (1978) has more detailed explanation:   “It is very unlikely that one part of the semantic system would remain totally isolated from another; when new meanings are being created on a large scale. It is certainly quite inadequate to interpret the innovations simply as changes in subject matter. The changes are brought about in this way involve media, genres, participants and participants relations, all the components of the situation. It is through the intermediary of the social structure that the semantic change is brought about. Social style is a function of social relationships and situation types generated by the social structure. A shift in the fashions of speaking will be better understood by reference to changing patterns of social interaction and social relationships than by search for a direct link between the language and the material culture.”      What shares the same view of that of  is  but is more compelling because of the fact that it captures both tacit and explicit modes compared to  which used only the most tacit of modes which is language. Initially,   (2005) made concrete the complexities of meaning making and by which aspects of modern societies create meaning from. The author stressed that semiotic resources encompasses obvious modes of communication such as language, gesture, images and music and less obvious with the likes of food, dress and everyday objects, all of which carry cultural value and significance. With these in mind,  (2005) advances two opinions regarding social semiotics. First, he address that the applicability of social semiotics theory highly depends on specifications of instances and problems thereby requiring oneself into semiotic concepts and methods. Second is that the author believed that social semiotics is a form of enquiry with no prêt-à-porter answers.  states that:   “social semiotics dramatically changes in terms of semiotic production from ‘sign’ to the way people use semiotic ‘resources’ both to produce communicative artifacts and events and to interpret them in the context of specific social situations and practices; social semiotics compares and contrasts semiotic modes rather than constructing separate accounts of the various semiotic modes; social semiotics focuses on how people regulate the use of semiotic resources and social semiotics is itself also a practice, oriented to observation and analysis toward the richness and complexity of semiotic production and interpretation, and to social intervention.”                views are sturdily highlighted in the song ‘Closing Time’ by Semisonic. Personally, the lyrics of the song include irony and metaphor and will highly depend on the interpretation of an individual as a song. There are two things that confirm such argument. First is on the comments by the viewers whom are quite perceptive. Based on how they understand the song, they incorporate it into their lives, that is. And second is the interpretation of the makers of the home made music video (which is available on  from that of the official (original) music video (found on ) considering the general theme. These two basic social logonomic differences clearly manifest and convey varying social messages and adherence to such messages, because of the social semiotic accounts present.   Immediately, the logonomic rule visible is the difference between men and women and how the message of the song and not the video was conveyed by means of using these two completely different figures. Preconditioning happens in both video and in a way understandable to the viewers, placing the target audience at a particular position the way society dictates it to be. A theme by which others can relate, the public or the audience was placed in a position where they will make meaning of what they had seen. Mimetic content of the video also suggest that in a way modern societies still holds similarities when it comes to social aspect hence the almost similar theme of the two videos. Semiotic works are therefore encompasses both who are directly and indirectly affected by social semiotics. The video is a channel of social semiotic and the content of the video is another social semiotic. Those who will watch the videos) made sense of the video by digesting social meanings most closely to their values and cultures.   Social semiotics opponents                (2002) implicitly states that social semiotics is the fundamental limitation of semiotics. He noted though that many of the criticisms of semiotics are directed at a form of semiotics to which contemporary semioticians adhere. The central concern of social semiotics is what we came to know as specific signifying practices. The author also stressed that the roots of social semiotics can be traced to the early theorists although none of  made explicit legitimatization of social use of signs.  did envisioned semiotics as science that deals with the roles of signs as part of the social life and  strongly advocated that semiosis as a dialogic process is central to his concept indicating that signs do not exist as distinctive but with the needs of interpreter and other social conventions. Such condition made possible the birth of an emphasis on social dimension of semiotics in terms of meaning-making practices.               Probably, the most distinguished criticism to social semiotics is that of  (1988) who refer to the work of as rubbish bin. The authors believed that unique to social semiotics are: the culture, society and politics as intrinsic to semiotics, the other semiotic systems alongside verbal language, the act of speaking and concrete signifying practices in other codes, the diachrony, time, history, process and change, the process of signification, the structures of the signified and the material natures of signs, all of which  explanation lacks. As such, there are many contradictions to  work although he acknowledged that language is itself a social fact. In some instances, the author affirmed that the ‘social over the individual but only as an abstract and immobilized version of the social order which is threatened by the actions of the innumerable individuals.  had its basis on the interplay between language and speaking, and regarded meaning as social, which is admittedly true. Knowingly, what  fails to relate is the applicability to any kind of meaning and not only to the cognitive.         Social semiotics neutralizers               There are however who chose to strike a balance between the two such that  (1988). The author asserts that the general Semiotics tends to be formalistic, abstracting signs from the contexts of use; Social Semiotics takes the meaning-making process or semiosis to be more fundamental than the system of meaning-relations among sign. With these words,  (1998) contends that signs are considered only the resources to be deployed in making meaning. He continues that “social semiotics examines semiotic practices, specific to a culture and community, for the making of various kinds of texts and meanings in various situational contexts and contexts of culturally meaningful activity. Social semiotics therefore makes no radical separation between theoretical and applied semiotics and is more closely associated with discourse analysis, multimedia analysis, educational research, cultural anthropology, political sociology, etc.”               There is an anonymous author who counterbalances the debates by means of comparing three founding works on social semiotics as  founded their claims on role of reference, meaning as a social element, meaning as psychological and the linguistic system while their basic difference is that  had a more binary conception of the sign compared to  which is more tended on triadic conception. The trichotomies of the sign are that: the nature of the sign itself, the nature of the relation of the sign to its object and the kind of relation that the interpretant of the sign bears to the sign. Nevertheless, there are several differences of that of  and   ideologies.   Aside from the fact that the former uses binary and the latter uses triadic conception of sign like  they have opposing explanation as to why no sign exists in isolation. For , this is because signs are generated by the system whereas  believed that it is because signs generate an endless chain of interpretants. Basically,  theory applies to languages and either excludes or assimilates languages all non-verbal semiotic fact. On the other hand,  does not seem to have concrete typologies of signs like that of     A Personal Standpoint               I am one with the ideologies of  as he unambiguously believes that for social semiotics to work there must be a sign, a significance and a signifier. I also believed that signs exist not in a vacuum therefore signs or meaning are generated and travels through interpretant leading to chains of interpretants. This reflects a reality that people classify signs according to their preference but with reference to their knowledge of the signs. The trichotomies help us in identifying the differences among signs and attached individualized meanings into it.                                                   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Social Semiotics seeks to explain meaning-making as a social practice

Social semiotics is a useful tool in understanding our world. An offshoot of the study of sign processes or semiotics, social semiotics...

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY       AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY               The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) was developed by , a Canadian psychologist, in the mid-1980s (2004).    (1998) argued that the SCT defines human behavior as a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal interaction of personal factors, behavior, and the environment.  According to this theory, an individual’s behavior is uniquely determined by each of these three factors. While the SCT upholds the behaviorist notion that response consequences mediate behavior, it contends that behavior is largely regulated antecedently through cognitive processes.  Bandura viewed people as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive organisms shaped and acted upon by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner impulses (2002).              The Social Cognitive Theory’s strong emphasis on one’s cognitions suggests that the mind is an active force that constructs one’s reality, selectively encodes information, performs behavior on the basis of values and expectations, and imposes structure on its own actions. Through feedback and reciprocity, a person’s own reality is formed by the interaction of the environment and one’s cognitions. In addition, cognitions change over time as a function of maturation and experience (i.e. attention span, memory, ability to form symbols, reasoning skills). It is through an understanding of the processes involved in one’s construction of reality that enables human behavior to be understood, predicted, and changed (1998).   SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF MORAL THOUGHT AND ACTION               One particularly fruitful area of investigation to which the Social Cognitive Theory has been employed is the study of moral and value internalization among children. In fact, it has been argued that the greatest contribution of the SCT is its aid in understanding how children are socialized to accept the standards and values of their society (1998).    (1991) reported that Social Cognitive Theory contends that personal factors, in the form of moral thought and affective self-reactions, moral conduct, and environmental factors all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally.  Moral thinking is a process in which multidimensional rules or standards are used to judge conduct. Situations with moral implications contain many decisional ingredients that may be given lesser or greater weight depending upon the standards by which they are cognitively processed and the particular constellations of events in given moral predicaments ().            (1997) stated that when children are young there are physical boundaries to control their actions. As they mature, social relations are designed to elicit culturally-acceptable behavior. Bandura’s theory suggests that cognitive guides are formed in social relationships which regulate conduct under changing circumstances. Internalization of standards of moral conduct requires modeling from various sources.  Children observe parents, siblings, peers and other adults to help them determine what behavior is appropriate for what situation.                 (1991) added that parents cannot always be present to guide their children’s behavior. Successful socialization requires gradual substitution of symbolic and internal controls for external sanctions and demands. As moral standards are gradually internalized, they begin to serve as guides and deterrents to conduct by the self-approving and self-reprimanding consequences children produce for themselves. Not only do the sanctions change from a social to a personal locus, but with advancing age the range of moral considerations expands. As the nature and seriousness of possible transgressions change with age, parents and other significant adults in the child’s life add new aspects to the moral persuasion. For example, they do not appeal to legal arguments when handling preschoolers’ misconduct, but they do explain legal codes and penalties to preadolescents to influence future behavior that can have serious legal consequences. It is hardly surprising that adolescents are more likely than young children to consider legalities in their reasoning about transgressive acts ().            (1997) further demonstrated that several unfortunate circumstances exist that emphasize the need for intentional modeling from those who have direct contact with children.  First, families that are estranged from the mainstream do not heed to institutional values causing confusing inconsistencies in the moral development of the children involved. Second, social change often arises from a breakdown of transmission between generations, leaving younger generations to find moral models among their contemporaries, which may not be appropriate. The last unfortunate reality is that television provides extensive opportunity for modeling aggressive and inappropriately sexualized behavior. Without adequate discussion of adult material that is readily available to them, children are likely to develop misconceptions about important issues.              Social Cognitive Theory identifies three sources of influence; behavior, cognition, and environment. Behavior usually produces self-evaluative reactions and social effects which may be complementary or opposing. To enhance the compatibility between personal and social influences people generally select associates with similar standards of conduct (although interacting with people of differing standards does not necessarily create personal conflict). In some cases, people who are not much committed to personal standards adopt a pragmatic orientation, tailoring their behavior to whatever the situation calls for. Selective association and the pragmatic orientation of moral behavior require certain abilities. The ability to selectively activate or disengage moral control requires that an individual must be capable of self-regulating behavior which could be considered purposeful access to the autonomous self (1997).  Self-reactive influences do not operate unless they are activated, and there are many psychosocial processes by which self-sanctions can be selectively activated and disengaged from transgressive conduct. Mechanisms of moral disengagement also play a central role in the social cognitive theory of morality (1991). Moral disengagement allows for different types of behavior under the same moral standards. This behavior is not culturally-acceptable and is, in some cases, reprehensible (1997).   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) was deve...

Social Representation of Russian people among young Polish community in the UK

Social Representation of Russian people among young Polish community in the UK Introduction             In any country or places, there are different groups of people that stand for their specific culture and belief, in order for this group of people to talk to each other or understand each other; they need a system that will stand for their common understanding ( 2007). More particularly it stand for their concepts and ideas that can be considered as outside of the common understanding or something that has a scrupulous for a certain group (2007).             This system deals with the social representation that is fundamentally a construction of reality that reflects the dominant systems of belief and value that represent an acceptable interpretation of object, individual and even an event (1986). Social representation is the result of the extensive social interaction of any one individual representation in his or her everyday life and consider as the backdrop to the individual’s attitudinal and attributional development (1986). It means that individual echoes affect totally or partially the dominant social representation that leads to the inability of an individual to claim autonomy of belief (1986).  Social Representation             The word social representation was first coined and uses by  during 1961 in his study about the reception and circulation of psychoanalysis that was done and conducted in France that elaborate the understanding about the embellishment of the social object by the society or group of people for the reason and point of behaving and communicating (1961;2000). Since the first used and proposal of the said term, social representation theory had become one of the most popular research paradigms in European social psychology, and today it is consider as one of the routine entry in the European social psychology textbooks (2000).             (1973) defined social representation as a system of values, ideas and practices with a two-fold function. First is to establish an order that will enable individuals to orientate themselves in their material and social world and eventually master it. The second function deals with the ability to communicate, in order to take place amongst members of a community by providing them with a code for social exchange and a code for naming and classifying unambiguously the various aspects of their world and their individual and group history ( 2007). He also stated that the social representation is the set of concepts, statements and explanations that was created by each individual and group in the daily life in the course of inter-individual communications. These are the equivalent, in the perspective of the society, of the myth and belief systems in traditional societies as well as the contemporary version of the common sense (2000).             Social representation is also consider as the one that revitalize a diverse tradition of the European social psychology that uses the account in the social collective perspective in the analysis of the human cognition and behavior that helped to complement the leading trend of the North American social psychology that focuses its primary analytical unit to the individual (2000). Aside from Europe, social representation is gaining it popularity in Asia and South America (2000)   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Social Representation of Russian people among young Polish community in the UK

Social Representation of Russian people among young Polish community in the UK Introduction In any country or places, there ...

Highlight key differences between the cognitiive and social perspectives in conceptualizing the self

Key Differences between the Cognitive and Social Perspectives in Conceptualizing the Self               In the study of human development and self conceptualization, psychologists and sociologists alike have come up with a variety of perspectives and theories. These perspective and theories which have served as tools in testing their ideas and concepts have helped them in understanding the organization and course of human development.             To gain further insight into the conceptualization of self at many angles, two perspectives shall be discussed in detail all throughout the course of the discussion in this paper.  These are the Cognitive and Social Perspectives in self conceptualization.   Cognitive Perspective             One of the most well-organized theories on how self is conceptualizes is by the use of the cognitive perspective. Furthermore, the perspective also touches Erikson’s psychosocial theory. Erik Erikson identified 8 developmental stages throughout the whole life cycle. In his view, for each stage of development, some kind of psychosocial crisis is likely to occur. If a person is provided with a social and psychological environment wherein he could develop, he could, in ways more than one, effectively conceptualize himself. Another theory suggests that from infancy to childhood, children are presented with the idea with who they are or how they think of themselves. According to some references, a man who has not completed the transition from the early cognitive stage of development to the modern and more complex cognitive perspective may never be able to realize the self. He is torn between two very different levels of values and attitudes so much that some psychological problems may set in. He operates on two levels of values and attitudes or two sets of standards, each pulling against the other. His responses and reactions towards self conceptualization may become irrational.   Social Perspective             A society is not only a group of people living together in a definite territory, but it is a social system of long established relationships of a certain way of life which people in it recognize and follow.             People often need to be part of something, or to belong somewhere. Therefore, they choose to live in communities and huddle together. One of the most important reasons for joining together is the feeling of gregariousness. “It is the desire or tendency of people to want to be with other people, particularly people of their own kind.” (, 1962). (1992) said that human beings are open social systems, and thus differentiate themselves from inanimate systems in two ways. First and foremost, human beings are considered the basic building block within organization. This goes to say that organizations are social systems and not machine or biological systems. Second, human organizations are very complex, in fact far more complex than any other types of systems that exist (, 1992). Unless one knows almost exactly how an individual will behave, act or react under a certain situation, there will be chaos in an organization. This is the reason why organizations have rules, regulations, and policies for the human resource to follow. Otherwise, harmony and success in the field of the organization cannot take place effectively. The rules, regulations, and policies in the workplace are necessary because in most cases the employee’s orientation in the home may be varied and their behavior may not conform with an organization’s expectations. Furthermore, employees or managers may not always play their roles in the same way at all times. But the successful management of the organizational setting may be largely attributed to the leader’s ability to maintain order and discipline.   Differences According to ,  and  (1980), health is the optimum level of independence in each activity of living which enables the individual to function at his or her maximum capacity.  (1995) defined mental and social of wholeness or integrity of the individual, his or her parts and modes of functioning. ,  and  (1986), states that mental and social health is a relatively stable state of maximum wellness which equates with independence.  (1980) pointed out that mental and social health is defined by cultures and individuals to denote behaviors that are of high value and low value.  (1966) defined mental and social health as the ability to function independently regarding fourteen fundamental activities of daily living. According to  (1982), mental and social health is a varying state of wellness and illness which is influenced by physiological, psychological, socio-cultural and developmental factors. These are just a few of the meanings of health as described by some authors. These are some of the similarities presented by many authors on the similarities of these perspectives. However, they also have many differences. As societies increasingly come to expect their citizens to manage their own self conceptualization, the individual is required to ‘police their body’. In sociology, sociology of the self emerged as a rapidly expanding area following the impact of post-modernist theory. In the present collection, two readings focus on ‘the self the first it examines the significance of the self to consumerism, and emphasizes the important role that consumerist notions of the self have in conceptualization issues. In the field of sociology, empirical research has continually provided evidence of the way social and material circumstances influence the pattern of self conceptualization, apart from the undoubted influence of medical concepts and knowledge. The popular notion that ‘knowledge is power’ is often taken to mean the reverse: that under postmodern conditions power is little more than knowledge and ‘truth claims’. However, the idea that we live in a period of ‘post-scarcity values’ where such discursive processes hold sway, flies in the face of the continuing effects of economic deprivation in contemporary societies-as reflected in the continuing debates about income differentials and social status and their impact on self connceptualization, even where absolute poverty is less evident. Unless such sources of power are recognized postmodern ideas threaten to become little more than a gloss on the continuing trend of widening social inequalities ( & , 1998). Within cognitive perspectives the emphasis on self has become paramount. The individual is encouraged to ‘adopt instrumental strategies to conceptualize oneself’ with ‘cognition’ being supported and structured through the production of ‘stylized images of the self’ in the advertising and entertainment media. In the context of cognition and psychology the prime purpose of individuals’ maintaining their ‘inner self’ through control of their diet, exercise and unhealthy behaviors ‘becomes the enhancement of the appearance of the outer self’. Clearly, the cognitive perspective is incapable of generating satisfactory strategies and solutions to the inevitable deterioration and decay which accompany ageing and death insofar as its logic is to avoid these realities and instead sell us the illusion of a forever happy, pain-free life which we can achieve by buying into regimes of self maintenance ( & , 2001). The increasing emphasis on the label of self, then, has been at the expense of the labels of both crime and sin and has been narrowing the limits if not weakening the jurisdiction of the traditional control institutions of religion and law. The cognitive mode of response to deviance is thus being applied to more and more behavior in our society, much of which has been responded to in quite different ways in the past (, 2002). In our day, what has been called crime, lunacy, degeneracy, sin, and even poverty in the past is now being called wrong self conceptualization, even co far as mental illness, and social policy has been moving toward adopting a perspective appropriate to the imputation of illness. Chains have been struck off and everywhere health professionalism has been raised to legitimate the claim that the proper management of deviance is “treatment” in the hands of a responsible and skilled profession. The labels of sin and crime being removed, what is done to the deviant is likely to be said to be done for his own good, done to help him rather than punish him, even though the treatment itself may constitute a deprivation under ordinary circumstances. Incorporating knowledge of self into lifestyle serves as prevention against the development of indifference. Optimal locations for assessment of healthy mental and social practices and status could be done by oneself. The early identification of potential or actual problems is the best way to avoid more serious problems. Similarly, in other settings, individuals who have personal problems such as uncertainty may require assistance in planning and compliance strategies. A professional may educate the families and provide information about community resources. A means, such as telephone numbers, of contacting a professional for follow up questions should always be part of counseling about self conceptualization for individuals.         Reference: Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Highlight key differences between the cognitiive and social perspectives in conceptualizing the self

Key Differences between the Cognitive and Social Perspectives in Conceptualizing the Self In the study of human developmen...

Cigarette Smoking

Social Cognition   Introduction             Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decrease availability to those less than 18 years of age resulted in a law that requires proof of age to purchase cigarettes. Cigarette smoking by women is also a growing health concern. However, enforcement is far from being met. In many public places, smoking is allowed and even minor aged individuals can smoke. The decision to smoke may be reflective of self-concept issues and may be culturally influenced. Awareness of risk factors is essential for implementation of preventive health care in a variety of health care settings. This paper will discuss the situation of Susan, a 45 year old single female who tried to quit cigarette smoking many times but failed. She has become frustrated and thinks she might never give up smoking. This discussion will focus on schemas, the self, and attribution theory, and relate it as factors that might be responsible for Susan’s failure to quit smoking and her thoughts and feelings in response to this situation.   Smoking Cessation Programs             Success in response to public health education is more likely in professional and managerial persons and in those best able to intelligently appreciate the risks associated with smoking. Unfortunately, most smokers do not usually stop smoking until the onset of ill health. Withdrawal effects, possibly related to nicotine deprivation, include depression, anxiety, irritability, insomnia, and weight gain. Hypnosis, aversion therapy, group therapy, and special smoking withdrawal clinics have helped individuals break their smoking habit, but the overall value of these aids is uncertain. Persons unable to stop cigarette smoking should be encouraged to change to a less dangerous method of smoking such as using pipes or cigars, or filter-tipped cigarettes with a low tar and nicotine content. The risk may be also reduced by smoking fewer cigarettes, inhaling less, leaving a longer stub, and taking fewer puffs/cigarettes (2005).             Motivated by health concerns, spurred on by social pressure, and aided by efficacious treatments, many smokers have managed to stop smoking. For a certain group of smokers, however, this outcome has been short-lived, as within months, weeks, or even days for some, a relapse to smoking occurs. Indeed, it has been documented that 1 year after a quit attempt, about 90% of would-be ex-smokers will have gone back to smoking (1999). Various organizations have put up campaigns against smoking. Yet not all of them do work. Governments alone cannot set up a successful campaign against smoking. Thus we see many private organizations that also help in campaigns against smoking.             Susan’s case is just one of the many cases about individuals who wish to stop smoking yet aren’t able to. Their need to smoke may be attributed to factors related to the self. Susan will probably need professional help regarding her smoking problem and an understanding of self is needed for a successful treatment.   Psychotherapeutic Approach             Because women’s lives are more punctuated, sociobiologically speaking, than are men’s — by menarche and menopause, by the monthly cycle of ovulation and bleeding, by pregnancy and childbirth, and by the accompanying assaults of these life changes on body image — looking at women as a block may blur differences in women’s smoking cessation needs across the life cycle. The special needs of women at different life stages will require much more attention if smoking cessation programs are to be maximally helpful to women smokers. Nevertheless, sufficient research has been done in a few aspects of the female life cycle to offer at least some guidance to the clinician (1999).             In Susan’s case, she would need a psychotherapeutic approach to her smoking problem. A psychotherapeutic approach for smoking cessation uses cognitive, supportive, and expressive therapeutic techniques that are generally delivered in an active, directive therapeutic style ( 1999). This approach will focus in an individual’s self-concept and views regarding smoking. Why people smoke and smokers’ views about smoking are issues that have attracted much attention within the last few years. Some researchers have focused on the role of peers and of parents. Other researchers have asked smokers to attribute their smoking to different reasons–for example, pleasure, relaxation, or weight control. These researchers have often been guided by attribution theory and, specifically, by the fundamental attribution error. When this theory has been applied to smokers, researchers have predicted that smokers would attribute their own smoking to external causes (e.g., peers, advertisements, pleasure), whereas nonsmokers would attribute people’s smoking to internal causes ( 1994). The therapy is change oriented, sequenced, and time limited.             The organizing principle of this therapeutic approach is the assumption that cigarette smoking is maintained by the (emotionally dependent) patient’s tendency to use cigarettes in the service of denying painful feelings. The consequence of this self-medicating tendency, which is sustained by the psychoactive nature of nicotine, is a learned and practiced inability to recognize feelings and to respond adaptively to the stressful, emotionally arousing events, large or small, of everyday life. The emotionally dependent smoker will often be emotionally unaware, constricted in emotional experience, and lacking in appropriate coping mechanisms (1999). The protection motivation theory also supports the psychotherapeutic approach to the problem of smoking. Protection motivation theory states that health information (e.g., cigarette health warnings) elicits both appraisal of the threat and appraisal of coping techniques; both cognitive processes involve (a) either maladaptive or adaptive responses and (b) variables that increase or decrease the probability of those responses. People use the threat-appraisal process to evaluate the variables associated with the potentially harmful (maladaptive) response. Intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards increase the probability of the maladaptive response; severity of and personal vulnerability to the danger decrease the probability of the maladaptive response. By using the coping-appraisal process, a person evaluates his or her ability to cope with and avert the threat (adaptive response). The efficacy of the response and one’s ability to perform it increase the likelihood of the adaptive response, whereas response costs decrease the probability of the adaptive response (1998). In the case of smoking, the likelihood of smoking is decreased by (a) belief in the severity of the diseases caused by smoking, (b) belief in one’s vulnerability to those diseases, (c) belief that smoking cessation is an effective way to avoid the diseases, and (d) belief that one can successfully stop smoking. On the other hand, the likelihood of cigarette smoking is increased by intrinsic rewards (e.g., physical satisfaction), extrinsic rewards (e.g., peer approval), and the costs of an adaptive response (e.g., enduring withdrawal symptoms). This would mean that aside from smoking being affected by emotions, it is also affected by cognition. According to this model, the increased likelihood of an adaptive response (not smoking) depends primarily on four cognitive perceptions. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection. Strong beliefs about these four variables arouse protection motivation; consequently, individuals are more likely to change their attitudes and subsequently to adopt the health behavior which is smoking cessation in this case (1998).             A key concept underlying this psychotherapeutic approach for the hardcore smoker dependent on emotion and cognition is the notion that it is not negative affect itself but rather the inability to cope with negative affect that presents an impediment to sustained abstinence. This explanatory model is rooted in the emotionally dependent smoker’s history of conveniently using cigarette smoking as a “psychological tool” with which to self-medicate painful feelings. Although the long-term benefit of using smoking to cope with negative feelings is questionable, the pharmacology of nicotine, a drug with multiple psychoactive effects, and the pharmacokinetics of smoked nicotine do make it plausible that feelings of anxiety, depression, or anger are attenuated at the time the cigarette is smoked. Although short-lived, this balming quality of smoking behavior is reinforcing, leading to its repetition whenever such negative affects are experienced, and ultimately to a state of emotional dependence on smoking. It is possible that this process begins early in the person’s smoking career, as suggested by the evidence that the relationship between being a regular smoker and depression starts as early as during the adolescent years (1999).             Following this line of thinking, the therapeutic challenge presented by the emotionally dependent smoker can be conceptualized on multiple levels. The presenting complaint is persistent, compulsive smoking, with an inability to sustain abstinence. With a high level of motivation, a pharmacological agent, and behavioral counseling, Susan may actually be able to stop on a given quit day.             Just as in the case of Susan, most smokers seemed torn: On the one hand, they saw smoking as extremely bad and were harsher about themselves than they were about others; on the other hand, they believed they could not change their smoking behavior because they perceived themselves as psychologically addicted. To change their habit, they would need to participate in programs that present adequate alternatives for relaxation and address psychological addiction ( 1994).             Promoting a positive self-concept in older adults like Susan is therefore essential, but it is especially important for those experiencing disability or frailty. Conducting a life review or participating in a reminiscence group, recording an oral history, or arranging a photo scrapbook of meaningful life events are examples of activities that can be suggested to Susan to help her feel a sense of self-worth about the life lived, as well as help take her mind off cigarette smoking ( 2001).             Potential threats to the self-esteem of older adults such as Susan may arise from the institutional environments where they receive their care. These threats can include dependence, devaluation, depersonalization, functional impairments, and lack of control over one’s environment. These threats could create stress in the individual and thus they resort to smoking as release and due to these factors have a hard time quitting smoking even if they desperately want to. Susan’s difficulty in stopping smoking is somehow related to her self-concept. Self-concept may be negatively affected in older adults secondary to a number of life changes, including health problems, declining socioeconomic status, spousal loss or bereavement, loss of social support, and decline in achievement experiences (2001).   Conclusion             There is a counseling approach for emotion and cognition dependent smokers, broadly defined as that subset of smokers whose inability to stop smoking is determined by emotional and cognitive factors. Despite Susan’s strong wish to stop smoking and multiple attempts to do so, her efforts are stymied by the emergence of distressful and painful feelings that they attempt to alleviate through smoking cigarettes. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings about smoking cessation by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection within the individual. Strong beliefs about these variables can arouse protection motivation; consequently, Susan will be more likely to change her attitudes and subsequently to stop smoking.               Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Cigarette Smoking

Social Cognition Introduction Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decreas...

Cigarette Smoking

Cigarette Smoking

Social Cognition Introduction Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decreas...