Job Analysis, Evaluation, and Selection in Modern Organizations
1.What is Job evaluation? Under what circumstances salary higher or lower than that indicated by the job evaluation?Job evaluation, is process of determining a legal & equitable occupational compensatory system to attract, keppp motivate & provide job security for new & ecisting employees. Two main components, internal & external pay equity.First stage of internal pay equity is Identifying compensable job factors, which differentiates the relative jobs worth. Considers: levels of responsibility,physical demands, education, training, experience, & working conditions. Levels of compensable factors involves is next & involves identifying the compensable factor levels for that job. E.G Eductaion might have 5 levels: High School,bachelor,matster,PhD. ||| In determining Factor weights, job eval commitee assigns figures to represent factor importance. First arbitrary total factor points determined (e.G. 1000). Then relevant weight based on fator import assigned. E.G, total weight in role with two factors: responsibility,& education (w/1000total); reposnibility determined most important weighted 600, followed by education weighted 400. Then factors broke into levels & assigned equal portion of points. I.E. Education broken into five levels: High School (80), two years uni(160), Bachelor(240) masters(320)PhD (400). Therefore applicant with two years of college, receives 2/ 5 compensation for that factor. Total points then compared to job’s salaries in organization & graphed with trendline of role salary: underpaid roles recommended to recive euitable raise, overpaid encumbents keeping salary but ‘reset’ to mean when encumbent leaves||| External pay equity dteremine’s role’s worth based on the market external to the company. Detrmined by Salary surveys identifyin salary range, start slary, actual slaries paid, & other benefits. These help determine market position of job & how the current organxiztion’s salaries compare ||| salary may pay more if :the company can afford to pay & wishes to attract/keep good employees, encumbent jol holder with in an overpaid position not left since evaluation. It may pay less if other benefits, such as super contributions or vehicles are used as compensation.2Job Analysis begins with a consideration of the organisation’s strategy. What is process of conducting JA & what may it be used for?10 main products of a JA? Occupational example.Job analysis (JA) is systematic process involves identify job tasks, duties, responsibilities. Process involves writing & rating task statements; determining necessary KSAO’s for a job; & KSAO test sel. Used to create right fit between job&employee; assess employee performance; determ monetary worth of tasks; & determ emp train/ Development requirements.|Ten main products of a JA, using Sales manager:|Job desc: document with summary main tasks & requiremnts for right applicant, include:supervision level, responsibility, compensation, core KSAOs. Employee selection based on job description, involves developing job related selection methods, test selection (e.G integrity tests)&interview questions (e.G “tell management exp”);Dev Training programs (e.G maximise sales,effective leadership) based on job activities from JA; Person-power planning: decidea&plan promotion potential planning of sales manager in org(e.G, national sales man); Performance appraisal: job-related employee performance eval, (e.G include agreement increase sales in x months); Job class groups jobs determined by similarities in required knowledge, skills, abilities & job requirements; Job evaluation establishes sales manager position worth relative to other jobs in org/similar external positions; Job design: analysis of job to increase prodictivity& job siatisfaction, analysis & optimise work methods. Includes ergonomics (e.G, sales manager may need ergonomic chair/desk) & work health & safety (wear hard hats in factory). Compliance with legal guidelines: job-relatedness is a legal requirement for all employee-based decisions/HR tasks. Reduces legal challenges to sales position (e.G, ensuring sales manager selected on JA, not race/gender etc). Organisational analysis identifies organisation weaknesses, allowing sales manager to address issues identified, enabling productivity improvements/increased organisational functioning || 3.Asked by management evaluate effectiveness of recruitment efforts. How go about? What comparative criteria use…
.
Effective recruitment methods should get the attention of the public, screen out unqualified applicants, motivate qualified people to apply & be cost effective & timely. Evaluating the effectiveness of the recruitment methods used is a data gathering, evaluation & analysis exercise. If access to company data is not available (ie it’s a new start-up company) then meta-analyses may be useful to evaluate effectiveness & advise best recruitment method. If data is available criteria on which to compare methods include: number of applicants, number qualified applicants, cost per applicant, cost per qualified applicant & time to fill position. These criteria are quick, provide informative info & easily give initial idea of which methods have been effective. The better criteria to measure effectiveness of methods are employee retention & job performance, with JP the best. These are more long-term success measures & while are best approach are not always viable as can be costly & time involved. But when possible JP best dimension to evaluate effective recruitment. Being qualified not always best measure as applicant may not be able to work in a team on the job; qualification doesn’t always translate to job success. From an organizational perspective best employees are those that successfully perform job for which have been hired, thus in evaluating effectiveness of recruitment methods, most effective methods will be those with best rate of producing employees who successfully perform the job.
4)Your textbook suggests SI better than USI selection tool, Why?
SIs ((high, med,low), based on JA, every pplicant same question, standardised scoring. Unstructured interviews(UI) flexible, allowing interviewer ask questions at dicretion. This style interview lacks question consistency, & response scoring. Any question may asked with no way of ensuring questions equally scored, leads to factors like: poor intuitive ability (gut reaction decisions), lack of job relatedness (questions have little job relevance), primacy effects (Interviewers decide applicant suitability based on set of “first impressions” rather than sequential judgements throughout process), contrasts effects (one applicant’s performance may agffect next applicants impression/score), negative-info bias (negative info at interview viewed poorly by interviewee – so applicants less honest re neg info) interviewer-interviewee similarity (applicant scores well if similar to interviewer), interviewee appearance (physically attractive & well dressed viewed more capable), & non-verbal cues (smiling/eye contact associated with positive scotres)| In predicting suitability, high structured interviews are more reliable & valid(r=.57), than UIs UIs (r=.20), resulting in higher precitors of job suitability. Structured interviews (SI) questionss are designed to understand the applicant; predict performance, gaige experience, skills & organisational fit; & sell the organisation to the employee. Legally, The SI’s high validity due to JA backed standard equivalent questions are viewed more fapirably than UIs, also causes less applicant adverse effects.
5. Explain nature & purpose of Job Description
JD written formal document w/responsibilities, dynamic document as regularly updated. Purpose of JD clarify role for employee/organisation, point of reference for all in organisational. Assist HR decisions e.G employee selection/training.Usually 5-8 pages inc: Job title:natureOfjob, indicate status, req competencies. Effects employee’s sense of personal worth, often used job search|Brief summ:sumOfnature/purpose of job.Used in advertising. Simple/easy language/sty;e|Work activities: clear list job-related tasks duties in cats. Cats incl job specific tasks&indiv competencies (KSAOs). Often “performs other assigned job-relatedduties ” handle contingencies (leave)|Tools&equipment. List of all tools/equipment for activities4applicants match own skills/ gives target skills levels for employee selection/training|WorkContext.Where work done,includes work schedule, supervision, levelOfresponsibil, ergonomic info(stress (physical/psychological)) & env conditions(indoor/outdoors/noise etc) .Documents org response to mitigate employee stress/discomfort|Performance standards outlines measures job performance. Describes standards used, evaluation fx/dimensions, & evaluator|Compensation info:not sal range, but pay grade based on KASOs/exp,oft derived from orgs job elevation dimensions or job group, may be indust regulatd|Personal requirements AKA Job compet or Job Spec refer requiremnts like job KSAO, may inc interest, personality, training. Divided into essential aspects needed at point of hire (selection fx), & acquired on job(training fx). Helps applicant determine job might be confident/happy in.||| 6. Employee selection is a multi-faceted,Provide explanationOf assessCentre ||
Uses collection of job-related assessments & multiple assessors to observe record behaviours of job applicants participate in multi job-related activities such as work samples, job simulations/scenarios,structured interviews&psychom tests. Trained evaluators assess&rate, with results at end collated to give each applicant a final score. Different to test battery, as are prescribed requirements: |||1. Based on job analysis: applicants asked to take part in selection activity could takemich personal time, needs be job relevant for to be valid investment. || 2 Use multiple assessment techniques: e.G work samples, psych tests + one requisite sim to gain good sample applicant skill. ||3. Min: one sim, e.G, role play activity |||4. Assessed by more than one person ||| 5. Behavioural observations/real time behaviour recording–documented at time of behaviour assessment by more than one assessor not just scoring but also people observing & documenting their observations. |||6.Behavioural reporting – outlining all observations. ||7.Overall judgment based on collective info from various tasks/multiple assessors.||| 8. Overall evaluation made when all applicants finished all processes.||| AC are highly correlated with predictors of performance but large investments in time/money for the hiring party & time for applicant, argued that combined medthods such as SI & psychometric test as effective7.How may ‘goal setting’ be applied to improve organisational performance? How might you implement this in a work settingGoal setting is thought to be underpinned by the principals of self regulation theory, which states , people are motivated by awareness of their own goals, monitoring progress towards achievements, & setting own priorities. Transformational leaders have been identified as being able to collaborate with team members to create goals beneficial to the growth of the employee & the organization. Therefore, implementing an organizational wide goal setting system which sees effective, transformational leaders collaborate with team members/employees to define goals which are: specific to a task; measurable, allowing the employee to monitor their progression towards to the goal; difficult, i.E. Challenging but still within reach; & relevant to the job should see improved org performance 8. Describe three factors influencing employee motivation? Provide an example of each in the context of working for a not-for-profit organisation. Three factors that influence employee motivation include: personality, expectations, & values. These three factors occur at the individual level of the spectrum. || Personality: Employees will be more motivated if they have personality traits that predispose them to be motivated. For example, if they are conscientious & have chronic positive self-esteem. In a not-for-profit-organization the employees who have higher levels of conscientiousness will be more motivated than the employees who have lower levels of conscientiousness.|||Expectations: Employees will be more motivated if their expectations have been met. This has two facets, expectations about what the individual is meant to be doing & expectations about what others expect from them. If the not-for-profit organization wants to have motivated employees they need to provide clear job descriptions & realistic job previews during the interview stage. As other’s expectations also shape performance (the Pygmalion effect)
, motivation will be moderated by how hard the co-workers work with high expectations resulting in higher performance (the Galatea effect) & low expectations resulting in lower performance (the Golem effect). ||| Values: Employees will be more motivated if their job & the organization they work in are consistent with their values. Thus if an individual feels the not-for-profit organization reflects their values (ie altruistic) & their role within the organization is consistent with their values (ie making a difference) they will be more motivated than if they worked for an organization that didn’t reflect their values..
9) What distinguishes a team from other kinds of groups? How do teams develop?
The terms ‘groups” & ‘teams” are often used interchangeably, however there are distinct differences.
Teams are work groups with: clear purpose, objectives & goals; coordimnation defined roles; & a sense of interdependence. ||| Teams differ from ‘pseudo teams’ which are groups of people working in close proximity under one supervisor but: are not interdependent, lack well defined goals, & have poor communications (Wood & West, 2015) The close proximity can make a pseudo team look like a team, but there are differences: pseudo teams may evolve due to members being assigned similar tasks yet remaining dsconnected to the group with no sense members’ contributions are interdependent. Communication within the pseudo-team may be limited/uncohesive| Two main viewints on team initiation exist. Tuckman (1965) proposed team development occurs through several well-defined stages: forming where team members meet & display courteous cooperative behaviours: clarify mission, determining goals, & govern issues; storming where frustration & siagreement sets in; norming, where shared rules to ease tension are made, as well as acceptance of the team & its leader; performing when the group accomplishes goals & adjourning. The performing stage is marked by the accomplishment of tasks & goals & by team members voving opionins without conflict. Adjourning, recognised by Tuckman & Jensen (1997) outlines celebration of team achievements & provides closure. ||| Alternatively, Gersick (1988) posits the theory of punctuated equilibrium, denoting that teams do not go through set stages, Rather teams form in an organic, basic manner, develop ing direction & strategy implementation for a period of time & revised as needed often at half the life of the team. Contrasting Tuckman’s model, the punctuated equilibrium theory is a simple, fluid approach aiming to achieve immediate action, allowing structural asjutsrments over the team life.To conclude, a team is a context or setting in which an individual feels they belong, they willingly commit to their work & have a sense of shared purpose & shared goals. It is for this reason they differentiate from groups10. A car manufacturer has decided to downsize its workforce & has employed you to manage the process. Provide a general outline of your plan. What factors would you take into consideration in developing your plan? Research shows downsizing lead 2 many neg effects for organisation, employees & wider community. Many victims report poorer physical/psych & Social health impacted with victims avoiding friends due stigma of being retrenched. Survivors feel less secure/more apprehensive, Work morale & job satisfaction suffers. Most orgs don’t improve on financial success w/0.5 report lower productivity. Many orgs face increased disability/health costs. Local community also suffers financially/socially. Hence, plan must manage the neg effects of downsizing|first step is ensure employees, especially survivors, accept need for downsizw. Research show employees more accept change if reasons legit eg, due financial/changing customer demands. Also important that respected leader wif succs hx in charge of change; assisted by change agents/analysts across org hierarchy who carry out critical soft factors of employee engagement, inc honest/ timely comms|Re Hard factor of resource downsizing, few approaches 2 consider.If business downturn likely short term (yearOr2), company consider pay cuts with potential higher bonus when profits return, may restrict overtime, & introduce job sharing/reduce work hours. These approaches retain workforce&allow fast ramp up when conditions improve. May implement early retirement/voluntary packages but can result in loss of most experienced staff. If market conditions long term, company can consider retrenching, starting w/temp&contract workers. To limit negative impact, all affected workers should be offered emotional& financial counselling, career Assessmnt&retraining| company may also offer flexible arrangements to survivors. E.G compressed workweeks which give employees better work life balance. If possible, employees may work from home, reducing company overheads|In sum, plan balance the interest & deliver best possible outcome for everyoneQ11 How has the nature of work changed in recent decades? Discuss the implications of these changes for contemporary organisations & their employees ||| nature of work relates to how people do their work, the contextsit takes place in & how it affects & relates to other aspects of life. Changed largely due advancements in technology & comms. E.G employees maybe expected to reply to emails late night or skype with workers in diff time zones. Employees demand & are offered more flexibille work arrangements eg fulltime having flexibility can compress 40 hours in less than 5 days per week. Trend towards: working reduced per work, working from home, & telecommuting. Younger generation see careers differently, don’t expect jobs last for decades anymore. Growing sense that organisations & employees aren’t intent on long term positions but incorporating transience & moving through workplaces i.E. Learn something & move to different career || Working part-time & job sharing is common practice reduces number of hours worked p/w. Past decade seen advanced cazialization of workforce. Can be good for both parties but it is often reflection of organisation saving money on sick/annual leave, than addressing employee’s needs. Benefits of flexible arrangements include: lower absenteeism & turnover, higher productivity & job satisfaction,& better work-life balance & increased community imvolvement. ||| Flexible arrangements only work if: employee wants flexibility, management is supportive, & job allows for flexibility. Employee advantages include: better work-life balance: more present child’s life; family involvement; reducing child care/commuting expenses & comfort in work conditions; increased job satisfaction/performance, reduces turnover desire. Employer advantages include: lower facility costs, & decreased unionisation through decentralisation of workforce. Cnveresley, difficulties arise in meeting organisation, staff supervision, & potential safety issues. Flexible work arrangements can be both beneficial & disadvantageous to employees & employers so requires careful consideratipon|||12. A key factor in change initiative failures is the tendency for the organisation to revert to ‘old’ ways of doing things. What could you do to maintain the change? || Makingg change easier to accept & support empowers employees to engage in change processes. Taking change input wide ranges of employess allows them feel heard, facilitating global engagement; enhancing adoption of change decisions & reducing conflict likelihood. ||| The behaviour of top management is important. Leaders should champion change & communicate it in a timely, relevant & inclusive manner. Greater likelihood of change acceptance will come from leaders who consult, listen & act on feedback, as will inviting employee involvement in design & implementation phases of changes. Cultural change is also important & is addressed by employing (new) culture consistent employees, creating socialization processes where new employees can learn about the new culture, & rewarding behaviours consistent with the new culture ||| 5 factors identified by Cummings & Worley (1997) that predict effective change management are: Motivating change, by influencing employees to create change readininess & overcome resistance which enables change to be perceived more positively, & increases motivation to change to change old habits; Creating a vision: describe desired futures in a ways that activate employees to support & commit to change; Developing political support: identifying & influencing power brokers as key stakeholders influencing change. Managing the transition: identifying activities to be planned; planning for maintaining the change, developing change advocates amongst management. Sustaining momentum by: providing sufficient resources; building support among change agents; identifying edcuational to develop new skills/behaviours. |||| In sum, if a clear, positive vision for the future & reasons for change are articulated, as well as providing necessary resources & training, chances that desired change will be maintained increase |||13. Describe the intergroup situation in the factory workforce studied by Brown (1978). Briefly explain Brown’s aim, method, results, & conclusion. Brown studied intergroup conflict between two worker froups, located separate parts aircraft engine factory. The dev group ‘D’, designed/tested engines while production group ‘P’, assembled engines. Group D believed selves higher status due to: more skilled workers, earnings linked to P’s productivity, paid slightly more than P. Stereotypes of “Unskilled production worker” (D referring to P), & “the development workers living off our backs” (P to D), developed || SHerif’s realistic conflict (RC) theory, posited mutually excusive goals, independent group goals, & no superordinate goals create intergroup conflict but Brown’s factory situation had none of these. Social identity theory (SIT), proposes people’s identity & self-esteem gained/boosted via membership of in-group, & comparison’s/competition with OG members; competetiton activated by making IG membership salient. Brown tested if IGC or SIT active by having P & D peeps take do 2 surveys. 1st identified whether wages should be fair between P & D, P answered they should have a pay rise to match D, & D said P should receive less, sacrificing own group’s wages to maintain disparity, (sign of social competition;(SC)). 2nd survey had P & D participants consider 10% redundancy across both groups, & asking how h≤ it. Responses indicated preference for OG redundancies (SC) & little superordinate goal cooperation (eg unionising) to save jobs. SC evidence and little SO goals, led Bown conclude SIT best explain interG conflict14 Outline terror management theory. Briefly describe its explanation of intergroup bias & the supporting evidence for this explanation. TMT, Know death coming…In line with, people fearful of not being alive engendering existential crises. TMT syas ‘managed’ by development & maintenance of CWV to reduce anxiety. CWV imbue person wif idea of symbolic or literal immortality|| TMT provides explanation of IGB, posits ppl validating CWV through social interactions, evaluatinf IG members positively because similar others assumed to support, & validate, own cultural worldview. People evaluate OG members negatively because dissimilar others are assumed to threaten their cultural worldview.Idence ||| Christian participants only showed IG favouritism & OG derogation towards Christian & Jewish targets under mortality salience conditions (Greenberg et al) i.E thinking about death showed IG favouritism and OG derogaton, when salience of mortality was low was no evidence of IG favouritism. ||| Minimal group members showed greater IG favouritism under mortality salience conditions (Harmon-Jones et al., 1996). American participants comsidering blame for car accidents, assigned more blame to a Japanese car manufacturer American manufacturer, only under MS cond (Nelson et al., 1997). 15. Describe/explain intergroup(IG) contact hypothesis.Describe/Explain the optimal conditions for beneficial intergroup contact. Illustrate answer with respect to organisational situation.The intergroup(IG) contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) proposes outgroup negative attitudes maintained by lack of access to disconfirming infor, hence contact between members of different groups would lead to discover similarities, disconfirm mutual negative stereotypes&reducing | 3 optimal conditions for beneficial IG:1.Contact prolonged/cooperative nature with no IG competition/mutually exclus goals.2. Contact supported by officials,higher authority moderation needed when two hostile groups meet. 3.Group members in contact should be of equal statusas differential power/ability status between groups’ contacts reinforces outgroup stereotypes not facilitate similarities|To reduce organizational IG conflict, management bring specific members of two groups together to work cooperatively on task to benefit both groups, which requires team members display non stereotypical characteristics & mutual similarities. E.G if groupA sees selves hardworking & groupB as lazy, group B members must be hardworking. Members of groups should also be of equal status within the company’s hierarchy, seeing each other as peers. Management should support contacts, facilitate achievement of cooperative goal, raise awareness of disconfirming info. ||| 16. Explain the decat, recat, & crossed cat approaches to reducing intergroup conflict. Very briefly illustrate each of your explanations with examples from a factory workforce situation. What are the common problems with all of these approaches (a) in a factory setting & (b) in relation to member–
To-group generalization? The Decat approach (Brewer & Miller states contact between 2 groups that highlights group affiliations will degenerate into conflict. This intergroup contact more effective when cat salience decreased as allows for +ve interactions. Two decat processes: 1.Differentiation within OG (distinguish between diff subgroups within the OG): eg, Prod & Dev(P & D) see P & D made up of subgroups that vary in skill level (P) & work effort (D). 2, personalization (perceive out-OG members individually):eg P & D meet Tony & Bill not knowing that are P or D workers.. Recat: suggests recat two groups IG & OG within common superordinate IG should reduce conflict (Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002).EG, contrast in factory of workers & employers; recat P&D into workers (IG) comparing to OG (employers) brings P & D together (Brown, 1978). Crossed Cat suggests belonging to more than one group – reducing real-world bias & discrim by overlapping 2 IG & 2 OG memberships to make multiple groups participants can evaluate (i.E. Double IG, crossed groups & double OG). eg, cross cat =meet someone same cat one area (IG) diff on other (OG) . Happens, via Interclass effects (diff between cats accentuated) & intraclass effects (differences inclass highlighted). Intra & interclass effects due cross cat reduces group salience & IGD. Eg P & D workers in aircraft factory meet socially with neighbouring auto factory P&D workers, aircraft P workers common ingroup with auto P members, same for air/auto D members. Share second cat discrimination dcereases.A common problem in improving intergroup relations via intergroup contact is category salience: whether or not the group category is prominent in the individuals mind at the time or not. The Decat, Recat & Crossed Cat approaches all reduce salience. In the example of Brown’s factory workers of P/D cat reduced salience is impractical as groups are necessary for the factory to function & this increases conflict. Hewstone & Brown, argue that the outgroup member’s social identity needs to be salient during the contact experience in order for the process of member-to-group generalisation to occur. In contrast Brewer & Miller found that group membership (social categories) should not be salient during initial contact in order for positive experiences with group members to be generalized to the group as a whole. IG contact may be more effective when cat salience decreased as group memberships & associated social identities is what is causing the conflict in the first place.17. Briefly define the OG homogeneity (OH) effect. Provide an example of objective differences causing an OH effect & an example of subjective differences causing an OH effect. Briefly describe Brown & Smith’s (1989) study of OG homogeneity amongst academic staff at a British university. Explain the interpretational difficulties with this study.The OG homogeneity (OH) effect is the tendency for people to perceive OG members as more homogeneous (more similar) than IG members (e,g. Men saying women ‘are all the same”). An objective (factual) difference causing an OH effect are men’s hairstyles being more homogenous than women’s, causing women to see men as more homogenous in this trait. Alternatively as men & women are equally intelligent, men seeing women as less intelligent is an OH effect based on a subjective bias||Investifgations of OH carried out by Brown & Smith (1989) used Female (11% – minority) & Male (89% – Mjority) academics as particpants, & asked them to rate staff gender grouped staff on three occupational dimensions (e.G. [roductivity”), results showed all groups saw women as more homogeneous. Males (majority) showed OH, females showed IG homogeneity. ||| interpretational difficulties in this study group status & group size as being confounded by design. In addition, it is possible that there were objective differences between the two groups, with selection processes favouring the majority group, such that the women were actually more homogenous than the men.
18.Describe & explain any four of the six models of the OG homogeneity effect that we covered in the lectures
The Prototype Abstraction Model (Judd & Park/Park & Judd) is a top-down model of OG homogeneity (OGH) where judgments of the OG variability are based on abstractions of the OG prototype. However, judgments of IG variability are based on abstractions of the IG prototype plus extra info from IG exemplars that are stored in memory. This extra info added by considering the IG exemplars results in a higher perceived variability of the IG.||| In comparison, the Multiple Exemplar Model: Differential Familiarity Hypothesis (Linville et al., 1989, 1986) is a bottom-up theory of OGH where individuals tend to be more familiar with members of the IG than with members of the OG. This differential experience results in more IG exemplars than OG exemplars storied in memory. The bigger the amount of exemplars encountered, the greater the variability will be amongst those exemplars. Thus the IG is perceived to be more variable than the OG as individuals are able to draw on a bigger sample of exemplars from the IG than from the OG. The greater the difference in the familiarity with the IG (more exemplars in memory) than the OG then the greater the effect will be.|||In contrast, Social Identity Theory (interpreted by Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992) states OGH occurs as individuality is perceived to be a positive characteristic (at least in Western cultures) & since the theory posits that people are motivated to behave in self-esteem enhancing ways, people are motivated to perceive their IG as more individual & variable than the OG. Thus satisfying their need for self-esteem. |||Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer 1991, 1993) provides a motivational model where the opposing needs for assimilation & differentiation act as motivational forces. Group size is a moderating factor in this model with membership in large groups resulting in an individual feeling anonymous & thus increasing the need for differentiation. This need is met by perceiving the IG to be relatively more distinctive & variable than the OG.20) Briefly describe research on the cognitive antecedents of stereotyping & discuss this research’s implications for understanding intergroup relations. Research led by Tajfel et al. (1971) investigating social categorisation with a minimal paradigm task, demonstrated people display IG bias (favour members of own group). These findings have served as the basis of subsequent research which has investigate the causes of stereotyping. Several cognitive biases have shown to result in stereotyping stereotype cognitive antecedents (SCA), in particular, heuristics, cognitive judgement shortcuts. Research in this field demonstrated stereotypes can develop from people’s over-reliance on cognitively available category examples when making judgements (Availability heuristic) for example, the solo token experiemnet demonstrated that amongst a highly homogenic group with one heterogenic token member, the token member is judged as more influenctial in (experimenter equalised) tasks than their homegeneic counterparts; assign greater fx of negtaoive behaviours (hitting) to minorities than majorities with the inverse result of same majorities jded as doing more positive ((help granny) behaviours; & when asked to judge famous Black & white people as good or bad, increased RT for “good” white people & same for ‘bad’ black people suggesting activation of a category prototypes. Social categorization research has had & continues to have a significant impact on intergriup relations. It was the basis for which intergroup-differntiation, perception of intergroup variability & the OG homogeneity effect which continue to be used today to investigate stereotypes. Understanding the tavauilability heuristic for inytergroup relations demonstrate quite well that a minority member can be categorised as with either a negative or positive valence, which could potentially be useful for reversing some sterotype damage (e.G. Having a prominent good black prson amongst white people on TV shows ). Knowedge of the illusory & representative heuristic highlights the negative effects caused by poor intergrouop reations. Recognition of this allows us to work towards fixes effects that minority categorizations can have on societies|||21 Outline the meta-theoretical assumptions of the cognitive approach (CA) to stereotyping & social judgment. Briefly highlight the strengths of this approach & clarify the limitations of these assumptions in light of contemporary research on stereotyping.traditional CA views stereotyping as inevitable consequence of human’s cognitive limitations, proposes brain is too limited to process all infor from outside world. Results in human use schemas (mental structures) & heuristics (mental shortcuts) in making decisions. Our cognitive limitations creates tendency to over rely on cognitively available info (eg race & gender), leading to stereotyping&inaccurate social judgements.Therefore, stereotyping is reflection of fundamental,inevitable cognitive processes that serve the individual.||CA strength in its investigation of underlying mechanisms. Has enhanced understanding of how stereotypes represented cognitively & how cognitive processes that maintain stereotypes devel ||| However, fails to account for influence of human emotions, motivations, & social functions. Eg.,Paolini,Harris,& Griffin (2015) found people engage in stereotypes to meet emotional needs & stay happy. Hence, tereotype use also motivated by emotional drivers. Stereotypes also used as societal-collective tools to differentiate social groups (explain/maintain societal status; Jost & Banaji, 1994) social relationships (ideological tool explain societal groups status;Turner et al. 1987). Greenberg et al (1997) suggests stereotypes protect individual from existential anxiety. Furthermore, stereotypes not fundamentally similar but unique, differing in structure (Paolini et al, 2007) content (Oakes et al 1994), variying between person&context (Oakes et al., 1994).||In sum, current research show stereotyping not pure automatic/due solely to cognitive limitations.
Motivation plays big role in stereotyping & social judgement, making peoples’ use of stereotype resemble motivated tactician. 22Briefly describe Maass & colleagues’ (2000) continuum of inhib potential of implicit & explicit measures of prejudice & discuss its implications for underst&ing modern forms of prejudice.||M.Et.Al use a continuum scale of explicit & implicit prejudice/stereotyping levels, as well as framework for ease/difficulty which people inhibit prejudiced responses. Implicit prejudice measures examine uncontrollable automatic processes (eg physiological reaction GSR & RT following priming tasks). Explicit measures easier to control as use mindful/deliberate process (examples including eg racism scales/open discrimination,racial slurs, Classic self-report). Inhib potential means person can control resposes if want, & Mid-range of scale finds these behaviours (e.G seating distance/eye contact) that are under ‘semi-cosncious’ control. Not all measures will be the same same, so knowedge of differring modulation of inhib impulses can occur in what settings is important for conducting research & analysing prior data. ||| Different measures tap different prejudices,deciding what to measure depends on:population type/group differences (e.G. Investigating ‘skin-heads’ then no point speed categorisation when they will tell you exactly what believe on self-report); Individual differences in motivation to inhibit; worldview will highlight likelihood of control process engagement (e.G working with liberal participants with egalitarian worldview likely different to skinheads); knowedge that stereotypes can change over norms & contexts; consideration of behavioural inhibition potential (eg controlled behaviour such as marriage equality rally, or subtle linguistic biases. Understanding all of these is essential to understanding sterotypes, designing research & examining prior research ||| Foe example In Devine’s 1998 study of Individual differences in motivation, differences in controlled stereotyping were measured. Implicit measures of cultural stereotypes examined impressions of ambiguously hostile person where primed participants rated targets more hostile than non-primed. Explicit measures of personal beliefs looked at white, explicitly measured low prejudiced participants who had been subconsviously primed with an afroamerican protype listed more negative than positive thoughts about Black people compared to highly prejudiced participants who had been primed. Devine’s findings suggest that everybody is prejudiced (unconsciously) & the negative consequences of stereotyping can be reduced if people have non-prejudiced personal beliefs & are motivated to suppress stereotype 23
.Briefly describe & critically evaluate past & current trends in research about the impact of emotions on social judgment|Past research on emotion’s impact on social judgement centers on incidental emotions stemming from sources not the object of judgement, perceived simultaneously to judgement formation. Esses & Zanna (1995) demonstrated that people made mood congruent judgements (e.G listen to sad/happy music results in respective negative/posyive judgements). Implies mood as source of priming, with mood valence activating valent & facilitating retrieval of mood congruent memory. Extending on this, Schwarz & Clore (1983; 1996) found mood acts a s ource of info, & judgement can be corrected when people are alerted to this priming. Forgas (1995) proposed an affect infusion model that considers mood as both a prime & an info source. ||| The judgement process is also affected by mood. Unkelbach, Forgas, & Denson (2008) found negative moods trigger careful cognitive processing (due to perceived world threat); positive mood triggers heuristic processing increasing stereotyped judgements ||| Contemporary research takes into account objects of judgement as source of amotion, & considers more specific emotions ||| Past reasecrch not consider objects of judgement as sources of aroused emotions, & only condiered emotions at a collective (negative/positive) level. current researches consider the interplay of stereotype objects & emotions, & intergroup context of the judgement. These are addressed in Infra/De humanization which found people humanize in groups by assigning them uniquely human emotions, but failing to assign them to outgroups; integrated threat theory, Stephan & Stephan (1985, 2000) finding prior intergroup experiences, cognitions & situational factors (e.G. Competition) trigger intergroup anxiety, amplifying habitual responses & mood congruent, stereotype based judgemets. their stereotype content model, Fiske et al. (2002) found that people elicits different emotions based on their differing perception of social groups, with Smith & Mackie (2008) proposed that people first appraise the relationship between themselves & the outgroup (eg, stronger or weaker position), invokes intergroup emotions, which leads to typical reactions ||| I24.Define each of three basic social psychological motivations & briefly discuss research about their impact on social judgment ||Self-Enhancement motives reflect people’s desire to feel good about themselves & gain positive self-esteem. Tajifel et al explored this motive in their minimal group study. In this study participants were found to act in self-esteem enhancing ways. Using reward matrixes participants willing to get less money for their IG if IG received more money than the OG. Behaviour consistent with motive of protecting self-esteem. || Accuracy & epistemic motives reflect desire for true & accurate view of self & world irrespective of effect on self-esteem. In research this motive is often operationalised through accountability manipulations. It’s postulated accuracy motives encourage elaborate/systematic processing thus result in more accurate judgments (Tetlock&Kim).In their study participants given info about 3 individuals & asked to write impressions of the individual & predict their answers. In the accountability condition participants used more attributes to form impression, noted more info contradictions, & developed more integrated impressions, leading to more accurate predictions, indicative of more thorough, systematic way of engaging with info. However, not all research replicated this with further studies finding accuracy goals can lead 2 worse judgments as people pay attention to usually irrelevant info, incorrectly incorporating this into judgment (Lerner & Tetlock).||| Defence/closure motives reflect desire to maintain&protect existing views of self & world & keep stable over time. Moreno & Bodenhausen argued that in face of stereotype inconsistent info defence motive is default motive & level of stereotype preservation is a fx of mental capacity. If someone has mental capacity at time, they engage in stereotype preservation, if not, then unable to engage in these processes, resulting in stereotype change. This theory consistent with results found in their study looking at accountants stereotypes as a fx of the defense & accuracy motive, under a low or high cognitive load. Participants showed most stereotyping in the low cognitive load, non-accountable (defence) condition.
Cuts
The implementation of change, no matter how small, is likely to generate resistance. On the individual level this can be due to factors such as personality, perceptions & habits; whereas on the organisational level, changes in organisational culture & resource limitations may create resistance. This can create anxiety about the future, driving organisations to cling to the status quo & to old ways of doing things. In fact, according to research by IBM (2008), around 60% of change initiatives fail.