Dominant group/Psychology

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ruffles and lace are dominant in the fashions of the day. Credit: SLQbot.

In psychology like its other uses, dominant group can refer to a majority of a population or group. As groups are a focus for psychology, the impact of the apparent cultural, scientific or technical term may be maximum.

Many of the branches of psychology need to be individually sampled for usage of dominant group and its synonyms.

Dominant group may be a psychological entity. It may be even more general such as a psychological existence, being, or actuality.

The psychology behind the use of the term may be important.

In theory, a dominant group in psychology may have at least four meanings: (1) a psychology-based entity, (2) source, (3) object, or (4) a group in some way associated with psychology.

Psychology[edit | edit source]

Def. "[t]he scientific study of human and animal behaviour"[1] is called ethology.

Dominant group[edit | edit source]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Theoretical psychology[edit | edit source]

Def. "[t]he study of the human mind", "human behavior", or "animal behavior"[2] is called psychology.

Small group theory[edit | edit source]

In psychology a dominant group may be only associated with psychology or be the subject of psychology. Proof of concept may be either one or both. Dominant group may only be an artifact.

"[S]mall group theory [has] at least six important conceptualizations [of the "small group" with] marked differences in their orientation and content".[3]

Dominance basis[edit | edit source]

In animal behavior, human behavior, and anthropology, the level of social status relative to other individuals can be a basis for dominance. The level of social status may be determined by deference.[4]

Classes of meaning[edit | edit source]

A dominant group in psychology may have at least four meanings: (1) a psychology-based entity, (2) source, (3) object, or (4) in some way associated with psychology.

The term may serve as an indicator or identifier. In Kirby's An Introduction to Entomology from 1826, a dominant group of species is determined by a regional distribution. Later, this regional distribution became relative and the term entered the field of evolution. Perhaps it is an evolutionary process.

As the field of dominant group is unknown, psychology is as likely as any other. Psychologists study animal groupings, especially human groups.

Dominant group may be only an artifact from dominance expressed in human history.

Any dominant group may be only an accident, or a deliberate outcome of human design.

Entities[edit | edit source]

"However, some answers to these questions may emerge from a consideration of the dominant group, that is, the five institutions whose scholars published the most articles in the two periodicals."[5]

"For instance, resources made available by a dominant group, such as the National Science Foundation, can be viewed both as “powers over” possible research agendas of others, and also as “powers with” others in assisting researchers pursuing certain kinds of projects."[6]

Sources[edit | edit source]

"For in some sense, both must come to know that the Token cannot completely escape her deviant origins, and cannot participate completely in the dominant group."[7]

"[D]ominant groups create and control the meanings and uses of material culture. If other groups wish to be understood by the dominant group, they must express themselves through the goods controlled by the dominant group."[8]

"But, the privilege afforded a certain dominant group of 'normal' archaeologists in terms of their ways of constructing the past influences all aspects of archaeological practice."[9]

"The dominant group's definition of its permeability is the controlling variable that determines the nature of the social field."[10]

"The ethnos, or ethnic group, is the homologue of the varietal or specific group of animals; it is the dominant group in lower savagery, but its influence on human life wanes upward, to practically disappear in enlightenment except as retained in the structure of the family."[11]

Objects[edit | edit source]

"Although clearly the major changes are found in the culture of the subordinate group, the dominant group also experiences a degree of change as well."[12]

“The dominant group was differentiated by a higher socio-economic status, greater independence, stronger identification with the father than the mother, less association with adults and with girls, and more with older children.”[13]

“The single exception is the case of Baptist parentage. But this again checks the previously observed item of distribution in the United States where we found the South was far behind in its quota. Baptists are probably the dominant group in this region.”[14]

“It is easy, furthermore, to predict quite accurately within the dominant group on the basis of mental ability, roughly, at least, that a member of this group will excel submissive persons in academic endeavors.”[15]

"[O]nly dominant group members who derive a sense of belonging and social value from their membership in the dominant ingroup should be motivated by group-based identity concerns to show signs of defensiveness in response to external explanations."[16]

"By virtue of being 'outnumbered' in society, minority group members typically have more familiarity with dominant group members than vice versa."[17]

"Members of dominant groups assume that their perceptions are the pertinent perceptions, that their problems are the problems that need to be addressed, and that in discourse they should be the speaker rather than the listener."[18]

“This shift is mainly at the expense of the mixed form-dominant group, since the percentage of color-dominant reactions, as well as their type distribution, remains almost the same.”[19]

"I. M. Lewis has argued that spirit possession frequently provides a means for oppressed or deprived groups such as women to exert pressure upon or attack the dominant group (Lewis 1986: 23-50).4 Once a claim of this kind has been made, either on the basis of ethnographic descriptions or theoretical expectations, further ethnographic material cannot be introduced in a neutral way."[20]

Abnormal psychology[edit | edit source]

"Unlike members of other oppressed groups (eg, African Americans, immigrants), most LGBs have siblings who are members of the dominant group (heterosexuals)."[21]

Applied psychology[edit | edit source]

"Third, item bias may play a role when cultural groups have developed their own small variations on the language of the dominant group (“ethnolects”)."[22]

"According to Kanter's (1977a, 1977b) structural theory, skewed gender ratios at upper organizational levels affect interactions between the dominant group (men) and the token group (women)."[23]

"For example, if Anglos are the dominant group in an organisation, Hispanics may experience poor performance evaluations, assignment to low-level, dead-end jobs, and low levels of mentoring and social support."[24]

Mental health[edit | edit source]

"When people self-injure they may be seeking to integrate with the dominant group while at the same time separate from it, and indeed that this tension is not oppositional, but understandable for many people struggling to find their identity."[25]

Neurology[edit | edit source]

“[D]iminution or removal of a dominant group of functions leads to an excessive outburst of energy”[26]

Pharmacy[edit | edit source]

"That is, in the first case there are dominant group-group interactions and in the second case dominant group-solvent interactions."[27]

Social psychology[edit | edit source]

From a social-psychological point-of-view "[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."[28]

"Based on the ethnic preference and trait attribution techniques, a remarkably consistent set of findings emerged, especially in relation to dominant group children."[29]

Hypotheses[edit | edit source]

  1. A dominant group is likely to use the tools of psychology to handle or control others.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. "ethology, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. January 13, 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
  2. "psychology, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
  3. John DeLamater (February 1974). "A Definition of "Group"". Small Group Behavior 5 (1): 30-44. Retrieved 2012-02-24. 
  4. John B. Kirby (November 1970). "Early American Politics—The Search for Ideology: An Historiographical Analysis and Critique of the Concept of 'Deference'". The Journal of Politics 32 (4): 808-38. doi:10.2307/2128384.;jsessionid=01ACA10B07A2031DB914D14CE1542E7F.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=6121644. Retrieved 2011-07-27. 
  5. Stephen L. Dyson (April 1985). "Two Paths to the past: A Comparative Study of the Last Fifty Years of American Antiquity and the American Journal of Archaeology". American Antiquity 50 (2): 452-63. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  6. Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood (2010). S. Baugher, S. M. Spencer-Wood. ed. Commentary: A Feminist Framework for Analyzing Complex Gendered Power Dynamics Altering Cultural Landscapes from the Past into the Present, In: Archaeology and Preservation of Gendered Landscapes. New York: Springer. pp. 343-60. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1501-6_15. Retrieved 2012-03-07. 
  7. Judith Long Laws (March 1975). "The psychology of tokenism: An analysis". Sex Roles 1 (1): 51-67. doi:10.1007/BF00287213. Retrieved 2012-05-25. 
  8. Paul A. Shackel (2000). Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb. ed. Craft to wage labor Agency and resistance in American historical archaeology, In: Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge.,%20Agency%20and%20Resistance%20in%20American%20Historical%20Archaeology%202000.pdf. Retrieved 2011-12-06. 
  9. Thomas A. Dowson (2000). "Why queer archaeology? An introduction". World Archaeology 32 (2): 161-5. doi:10.1080/00438240050131144. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  10. R. A. Schermerhorn (3rd Quarter 1964). "Toward a general theory of minority groups". Phylon 25 (3): 238-46. 
  11. W J McGee (July 1899). "The Trend of Human Progress". American Anthropologist New Series 1 (3): 401-47. Retrieved 2011-09-20. 
  12. Charles R. Ewen (2000). "From Colonist to Creole: Archaeological Patterns of Spanish Colonization in the New World". Historical Archaeology 34 (3): 36-45. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  13. Carpenter, J.; Eisenberg, P. (1938). "Some relations between family background and personality". Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 6: 115-36. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  14. Vetter, G. B.; Green, M. (July 1932). "Personality and group factors in the making of atheists". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 27 (2): 179-94. doi:10.1037/h0075273. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  15. M. E. Broom (October 1930). "A study of a test of ascendence-submission". Journal of Applied Psychology 14 (5): 405-13. doi:10.1037/h0074129. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  16. Michael R. Andreychik and Michael J. Gill (December 2009). "Ingroup Identity Moderates the Impact of Social Explanations on Intergroup Attitudes: External Explanations Are Not Inherently Prosocial". Personality and Social Psychology Bulleitin 35 (12): 1632-45. doi:10.1177/0146167209345285. Retrieved 2011-07-22. 
  17. Laur'i L. Hyers and Janet K. Swim (October 1998). "A comparison of the experiences of dominant and minority group members during an intergroup encounter". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 1 (2): 143-63. doi:10.1177/1368430298012003. 
  18. Stephanie M. Wildman (October 2005). "The Persistence of White Privilege". Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 18: 245-65. Retrieved 2011-07-28. 
  19. Colby, M. G.; Robertson, J. B. (June 1942). "Genetic studies in abstraction". Journal of Comparative Psychology 33 (3): 385-401. doi:10.1037/h0062934. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  20. Nicholas Thomas (July 15, 1996). Out of Time: History and Evolution in Anthropological Discourse Second Edition. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. pp. 176. ISBN 0-472-08377-5. Retrieved 2012-02-17. 
  21. Kimberly F. Balsam, Theodore P. Beauchaine, Ruth M. Mickey, Esther D. Rothblum (August 2005). "Mental Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Siblings: Effects of Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Family". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114 (3): 471-6. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.471. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 
  22. FJR Van De Vijver (April 2004). "Assessment in Multicultural Groups: The Role of Acculturation". Applied Psychology 53 (2): 215-36. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00169.x. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 
  23. Karen S. Lyness; Donna E. Thompson (February 2000). "Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route?". Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (1): 86-101. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.86. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 
  24. Eugene F. Stone-Romero, Dianna L. Stone, Eduardo Salas (July 2003). "The influence of culture on role conceptions and role behavior in organisations". Applied Psychology 52 (3): 328-62. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00139. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 
  25. Margaret McAllister (September 2003). "Multiple meanings of self harm: A critical review". International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 12 (3): 177-85. doi:10.1046/j.1440-0979.2003.00287.x. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 
  26. Henry Head (June 1921). "Croonian lecture: Release of function in the nervous system". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character 92 (645): 184-209. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  27. SS Davis (October 1973). "Determination of thermodynamics of halogen groups in solutions of drug molecules". Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 25 (10): 769-78. doi:10.1111/j.2042-7158.1973.tb09940.x. Retrieved 2011-10-20. 
  28. Eric D. Knowles, Kaiping Peng (August 2005). "White selves: conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2): 223-41. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.223. 
  29. Drew Nesdale (March 2001). "Language and the Development of Children’s Ethnic Prejudice". Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20 (1-2): 90-110. doi:10.1177/0261927X01020001005. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 

Further reading[edit | edit source]

External links[edit | edit source]

{{Dominant group}}