12.3.1

Loading...

Del curso dictado por University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

142 calificaciones

University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

142 calificaciones

This course is Part 2 of the Social Norms, Social Change series. In this course, we will examine social change, the tools we may use to enact change, and put into practice all we have learned in Part 1. See Social Norms, Social Change Part I at this link: https://coursera.org/learn/norms This course covers scripts and schemas, the cognitive structures in which social expectations are embedded, and their relationship with social norms. The course then examines the essentials of norm abandonment, including the relations between personal beliefs and social expectations. We will also evaluate existing intervention strategies, including legal reforms, information campaigns, economic incentives, and group deliberations. Finally, we look at a variety of tools policy makers may use to effect change, highlight the role of trendsetters in social change, and explore the conditions under which they can be successful. The course is a joint Penn-UNICEF project." Please see the following link for a 30% discount on the book that accompanies this course: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/9780190622053/?cc=us&lang=en&promocode=AAFLYG6

De la lección

Trendsetters and Social Change

This module covers trendsetters and their relations to social change. Who are trendsetters? What are their characteristics? How can we identify them? And how can we use them to bring about positive social change. This module also discusses the role of soap operas and edutainment in bringing about social change, how fictional characters and groups can act as trendsetters, and comparative advantages of edutainment interventions over traditional interventions.

Introduction1:18

Conoce a los instructores

Cristina Bicchieri
S. J. Patterson Harvie Professor of Social Thought and Comparative Ethics
Department of Philosophy

[MUSIC]

In addition to norm sensitivity described in the last video,

risk perception and risk sensitivity also determine

whether someone is willing to be a first mover.

Prior to the civil rights movement,

staging a sit-in to protest systemic inequality was a highly risky activity.

And indeed, it was the presence of black students in a city for

whom deviating incurred fewer risks than for

working it out that predicted the incidence of sit-ins.

For black Americans, the risk of deviating from the norms,

maintaining these inequalities, was very real.

But it was a perceived magnitude of such risk what

ultimately influence their behavior.

Black college students who perceive the risk to be smaller

than they actually were, or who were generally risk-seeking,

were theoretically more likely to stage a sit in than risk-averse students or

students with more accurate perception of the potential consequences of deviating.

In this example, and

in many others, the risks of being a first mover are especially high.

So trend-setters are likely to be either particularly risky and

sensitive or to misperceive the actual risks of deviance.

We must distinguish risk sensitivity, a general trait,

from the more variable risk perception, as both are essential

determinants of a person willingness to be the first to abandon a norm.

Psychological research sheds light on how risk sensitivity influences behavior and

what types of people are generally risk-seeking or risk-adverse.

I should stress that personal risk sensitivity is invariant.

It is a stable disposition.

It is often assumed that criminals, adolescents with ADHD and

entrepreneurs share a low sensitivity to risk.

They largely discount the future,

or have permanent, overly optimistic views of their chances of success.

In contrast to risk sensitivity, risk perception varies in the same person,

depending on the specific situation.

Risk perception changes based on the actual circumstances,

what is at stake, and the action under consideration.

The same person with generally high or moderate risk sensitivity

could have a very low risk perception in a particular situation.

For example, a person of moderate risk sensitivity

may not dare cut in line at a supermarket

because of the likely disapproval that this action would incur.

But may feel much less restrained in stealing some small item

in an unpopulated aisle.

This person has moderate risk sensitivity and generally avoids risky behavior.

But her perception of what constitutes risky behavior vary across situations.

Moreover, within a particular domain, in this case cutting in line in

a supermarket, risk perception will also vary across individuals.

One individual may optimistically believe that cutting a line would at most,

induces a sneer from other customers.

Whereas another individual with similar risk sensitivity, may imagine

that the same action would induce insulting and embarrassing comments.

What differentiates objective and perceived risks?

In the case of a social norm, several factors may influence risk perception.

Risk perception may depend on one's uncertainty

about the objective risk of deviating from a norm.

A person who has not experience the consequences of transgressing

a norm may perceive the cost as greater or lower than they actually are.

Risk perception may also depend on one's degree of

optimism about the success of one's action.

A prime example of these is a person's confidence that they will be followed by

others if they initiate a strike.

A personal degree of optimism about the success of their

actions relates to Bandura concept of perceived self-efficacy.

Perceived self-efficacy is one perceived capacity to exercise

control over one's self and events in one's life.

It is distinct from autonomy, in that autonomy is defined as

the perceived ability to act independently from others' control.

While perceived self-efficacy's focuses on

the degree of the influence one feels he can exert with his actions.

Theoretically, sectors should be both autonomous and

have high perceived self-efficacy before deviating from an established norm.

When dealing with counter normative actions, one must believe

that one's action will carry weight before being willing to engage in them.

Lastly, risk perception may be influenced by the perceived

trade-off between the risk of negative sanction and

the much larger benefit incurred in initiating new behavior.

In other words, focusing on the expected benefits may cause one to forget

about negative consequences and dampen a risk perception.

We can assume that risk sensitivity is normally distributed in a population.

On the contrary, risk perception will be distributed around the objective risk.

Supposed that is well known that violation of the norm that one should wait in

line when paying at the supermarket, illicit a strong display of disapproval.

In this case,

most people risk perception will cluster around the typical disapproval response.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play