Halloween Presentation

PROJECT

Alazne SudupeJoe swede

topic

the more you identify with the body, the greater the difference you see amongst people.

Surface-Level Diversity

Surface-level diversity refers to differences in people's appearance, such as race, gender, and physical traits.

• These superficial traits often lead to assumptions that those who look different are fundamentally different.
• Four psychological theories explain how people categorize others based on surface-level differences and how this affects self-confidence and learning.

Schema Theory

Schema Theory explains that individuals group people based on visible traits, such as race, gender, and age, in order to simplify their social world. These groupings are known as schemas, mental structures that help individuals organize and interpret information.

• People use schemas to make quick assumptions. For example, when meeting someone for the first time, you might categorize them based on their appearance or attire, making assumptions about their behavior or status.
• This quick categorization often results in stereotyping, where people unconsciously apply generalized beliefs (schemas) to individuals based solely on their demographic traits. This can lead to exclusion or unfair treatment of those who don’t fit the dominant group’s schema.
• In workplaces or schools, this can result in certain people being overlooked for promotions or projects, or assumptions being made about someone’s skills based on their appearance.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory emphasizes that people use visible traits to categorize others quickly because they are constantly processing large amounts of information. This automatic categorization allows the brain to filter out unnecessary information but can also lead to biased judgments.

• This theory suggests that our brains default to categorization as a survival mechanism. For example, when you meet someone new, your brain might immediately label them based on their physical traits, like clothing, gender, or race, without giving much thought to their individual personality or skills.

• These quick judgments often lead to unconscious bias, where decisions are made based on these initial categories rather than actual interactions. In team settings, this can limit opportunities for certain individuals and create social barriers.

• In learning environments, quick categorization can affect classroom dynamics, where students are judged on appearance rather than ability, which may hinder collaboration and participation.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory explains that people define themselves in terms of their group memberships, such as race, ethnicity, or profession. These groups form part of a person’s social identity, leading to in-groups (people who are like us) and out-groups (people who are different).

• Individuals derive part of their self-esteem from being part of a group. In-group favoritism occurs when people prefer and prioritize those who belong to their group, often viewing the out-group with suspicion or negativity.

• This leads to discrimination and prejudice in diverse settings, where individuals may subconsciously exclude or view those from the out-group as inferior. It can also create tensions and divisions within teams, where members don’t feel united or valued.

• In a diverse classroom or workplace, this theory explains why cliques or subgroups form and how they can affect group dynamics, reducing teamwork and collaboration.

LINK

Similarity-Attraction Paradigm

The Similarity-Attraction Paradigm suggests that people are naturally attracted to those who are similar to them in appearance, behavior, or background. This is based on the idea that similarity breeds familiarity and comfort.

• We tend to trust and connect with people who look or think like us, which leads to a bias toward similar others. This can happen in friendships, work teams, and even leadership selection, where people gravitate toward those who reflect their own traits and experiences.
• The downside is that this can create exclusive environments where people who don’t fit the physical or cultural norm are marginalized or ignored. It also limits diversity of thought, as individuals are less likely to engage with those who look or think differently from them.
• This bias can negatively affect hiring practices, promotions, and teamwork, as individuals may only choose to work with or help those who are similar, reducing the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Impact on Confidence and Learning

Surface-level diversity and the biases explained by these four theories can result in individuals feeling isolated or inferior, especially in environments where they stand out visually. This can significantly impact their self-confidence and willingness to engage in learning or social situations.

Two Types of Reactions:

• Performance-Prove Orientation: People may feel the need to overcompensate by trying too hard to fit in or prove their worth, often leading to stress or burnout.
• Avoidance Orientation: Others may choose to disengage, avoiding challenges or participation altogether to prevent further feelings of exclusion or failure.
• In educational or professional settings, this creates a distraction that takes focus away from learning or productivity. Individuals may struggle to fully engage or contribute due to concerns about fitting in or being judged based on their appearance.
• To foster more inclusive environments, it’s crucial to reduce the focus on surface-level differences and encourage deeper connections based on shared goals, values, and skills.

The more we identify with physical differences, the more likely we are to categorize and judge others based on surface-level traits.Takeaway: Understanding these four theories—Schema Theory, Social Cognitive Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Similarity-Attraction Paradigm—helps us recognize the biases that come from focusing on surface-level diversity.Next Steps: Encouraging deeper connections based on values, skills, and interests can help combat the negative effects of surface-level diversity.

conclusion