Goodfriend, W. (2019). Social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Instructions In Chapter 9, you read about four criteria that need to be met in order for contact between hostile groups to decrease prejudices. In this assignment, you will reflect on these criteria and develop a program to reduce prejudice. Compose an essay that includes the following components: an explanation of how oneâs tendency to perceive others using either the halo effect or the fundamental attribution error could contribute to developing prejudices, a description of the four criteria used to reduce prejudice, and a discussion of the two criteria that you think are most important and why. You must also access the CSU Online Library to find a peer-reviewed empirical article that provides supporting evidence for at least one of the two criteria you selected as most important above. In the library database PsycARTICLES, put your search criteria in the Advanced Search, and then limit to the Research Methodology of Empirical Study. These specific kinds of studies are also located in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. After providing a brief overview of the articleâs main findings, address the following points. Describe a prejudice reduction program you could implement based on the two criteria that you previously selected as most important. Explain why you believe this program will be effective by drawing on research concerning prejudice and discrimination. Discuss how the program would be implemented.
Sample Solution
ifferent story to understudy drinking since liquor isn’t generally the focal point of friend and social associations in college understudies. The nature of companion connections in social orders/clubs at college can likewise impact liquor utilization as this is a piece of college culture. Research given by (LaBrie et al., 2007) delineated that there are two fundamental compelling companion bunches in the school setting in America. These may impact drinking society as these sororities and organizations are increasingly associated with unreasonable liquor utilization (LaBrie et al., 2007). Likewise, UK college sports clubs have been found to expend elevated amounts of liquor (Partington et al., 2012). Intemperate liquor utilization is significant in college sports crews as it is viewed as building up a feeling of having a place (Clayton and Humberstone, 2006). Therefore, it very well may be said that liquor influences understudies’ liquor utilization since liquor is engrained in college culture and to an extraordinary degree in clubs and social orders (Partington et al., 2012). What’s more, college sports clubs that are in the UK who get liquor industry sponsorships connect more in risky drinking conduct than unsponsored college sports clubs (O’Brien et al., 2014). Along these lines, it tends to be contended that it is a social standard and influences college drinking as these games groups are urged to drink which may lead into negative impacts like enemy of social conduct. They are strengthened in a positive manner by picking up sponsorships and are commended for it, as it is a ‘laddish’ thing to share in unsafe liquor conduct (Dempster, 2011) Liquor utilization through pre-drinking is when understudies drink huge amounts of liquor before they go out to their headliner so as to maintain a strategic distance from high liquor costs at bars (Zamboanga, Schwartz, Ham, Borsari, and Van Tyne, 2009). Friend communications are a basic piece of pre-drink settings, so understudies devour more liquor than typical (Eastman, 2002). Numerous understudies take part in pre-drinking exercises as it is a shabby method to get alcoholic quicker, it improves gathering holding and hence the positive social experience that understudies receive in return (Wells et al, 2008 as sited in Marsh, 2018). This influences college understudies drinking as research has discovered that understudy drinking is receptive to liquor occasions (Magill, Kahler, Monti and Barnett, 2012), additional understudies are slanted to go to pre-drinks in light of the fact that the pace of participation has been related with liquor accessibility (Zamboanga et al., 2012). Be that as it may, negative impacts are related with in light of the fact that pre-consumers have an improved hazard in the probability of liquor harming and power outages, because of the inordinate measure of liquor devoured before going out (Wells, Graham, and Purcell, 2009). Socialization and friend impact were utilized to survey liquor utilization in first year understudies (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). Discoveries had demonstrated that first year understudies was companions with the individuals who had comparable hard-core boozing designs as they did before they had begun college and kept on keeping up that hard-core boozing design (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). This gives an alternate part of friend effect on the utilization of liquor as from this examination there is a point of confinement to how much liquor that the understudies in this example expend however they draw in with a companion that devours comparative measures of liquor to them (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). Social standards have been observed to be one of the noteworthy indicators for substantial drinking among understudies (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, and Larimer, 2007). Social standards allude to the acknowledged conduct that oversee gatherings and social orders (Bicchieri, 2016). Hitting the bottle hard has turned into a social standard since college understudies specifically consider this pace of liquor utilization as being adequate (Gill, 2002). During Freshers’ week the social standard among understudies is to toast abundance and take an interest in other hazard taking conduct (Brown,2016). Research given by File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer (1994) investigated the liquor utilization of restorative understudies during Fresher’s Week. Discoveries had demonstrated that in the example of first year students the most extreme utilization of liquor was 28 units this included 34% of the example who were non-consumers, 10 of these understudies drank during Fresher’s Week (File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer, 1994). Social standards and social weights were believed to be reasons influencing drinking in restorative understudies specifically the primary year students (File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer, 1994). This is because of the ordinariness of inordinate drinking during this period appeared and demonstrated by other year gatherings and one another (Purshouse, Brennan, Latimer, Meng, and Rafia, 2009) Friend impact alongside social standards are significant impacts in understudies’ drinking at Bangor University since understudies are around companions who are much the same as them, consequently>
ifferent story to understudy drinking since liquor isn’t generally the focal point of friend and social associations in college understudies. The nature of companion connections in social orders/clubs at college can likewise impact liquor utilization as this is a piece of college culture. Research given by (LaBrie et al., 2007) delineated that there are two fundamental compelling companion bunches in the school setting in America. These may impact drinking society as these sororities and organizations are increasingly associated with unreasonable liquor utilization (LaBrie et al., 2007). Likewise, UK college sports clubs have been found to expend elevated amounts of liquor (Partington et al., 2012). Intemperate liquor utilization is significant in college sports crews as it is viewed as building up a feeling of having a place (Clayton and Humberstone, 2006). Therefore, it very well may be said that liquor influences understudies’ liquor utilization since liquor is engrained in college culture and to an extraordinary degree in clubs and social orders (Partington et al., 2012). What’s more, college sports clubs that are in the UK who get liquor industry sponsorships connect more in risky drinking conduct than unsponsored college sports clubs (O’Brien et al., 2014). Along these lines, it tends to be contended that it is a social standard and influences college drinking as these games groups are urged to drink which may lead into negative impacts like enemy of social conduct. They are strengthened in a positive manner by picking up sponsorships and are commended for it, as it is a ‘laddish’ thing to share in unsafe liquor conduct (Dempster, 2011) Liquor utilization through pre-drinking is when understudies drink huge amounts of liquor before they go out to their headliner so as to maintain a strategic distance from high liquor costs at bars (Zamboanga, Schwartz, Ham, Borsari, and Van Tyne, 2009). Friend communications are a basic piece of pre-drink settings, so understudies devour more liquor than typical (Eastman, 2002). Numerous understudies take part in pre-drinking exercises as it is a shabby method to get alcoholic quicker, it improves gathering holding and hence the positive social experience that understudies receive in return (Wells et al, 2008 as sited in Marsh, 2018). This influences college understudies drinking as research has discovered that understudy drinking is receptive to liquor occasions (Magill, Kahler, Monti and Barnett, 2012), additional understudies are slanted to go to pre-drinks in light of the fact that the pace of participation has been related with liquor accessibility (Zamboanga et al., 2012). Be that as it may, negative impacts are related with in light of the fact that pre-consumers have an improved hazard in the probability of liquor harming and power outages, because of the inordinate measure of liquor devoured before going out (Wells, Graham, and Purcell, 2009). Socialization and friend impact were utilized to survey liquor utilization in first year understudies (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). Discoveries had demonstrated that first year understudies was companions with the individuals who had comparable hard-core boozing designs as they did before they had begun college and kept on keeping up that hard-core boozing design (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). This gives an alternate part of friend effect on the utilization of liquor as from this examination there is a point of confinement to how much liquor that the understudies in this example expend however they draw in with a companion that devours comparative measures of liquor to them (Miller, Prinstein, Esposito-Smythers, 2014). Social standards have been observed to be one of the noteworthy indicators for substantial drinking among understudies (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, and Larimer, 2007). Social standards allude to the acknowledged conduct that oversee gatherings and social orders (Bicchieri, 2016). Hitting the bottle hard has turned into a social standard since college understudies specifically consider this pace of liquor utilization as being adequate (Gill, 2002). During Freshers’ week the social standard among understudies is to toast abundance and take an interest in other hazard taking conduct (Brown,2016). Research given by File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer (1994) investigated the liquor utilization of restorative understudies during Fresher’s Week. Discoveries had demonstrated that in the example of first year students the most extreme utilization of liquor was 28 units this included 34% of the example who were non-consumers, 10 of these understudies drank during Fresher’s Week (File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer, 1994). Social standards and social weights were believed to be reasons influencing drinking in restorative understudies specifically the primary year students (File, Mabbutt, and Shaffer, 1994). This is because of the ordinariness of inordinate drinking during this period appeared and demonstrated by other year gatherings and one another (Purshouse, Brennan, Latimer, Meng, and Rafia, 2009) Friend impact alongside social standards are significant impacts in understudies’ drinking at Bangor University since understudies are around companions who are much the same as them, consequently>
