Diversity Is a Defining Feature of Contemporary Society - Essay Example

Article Analysis Article Analysis Psychology researchers Crisp and Turner argue that diversity is a defining feature of contemporary society. At the same time, there is still a significant discussion over the advantages of diversity. Crisp and Turner contend that one can observe optimistic mental and social outcomes, just when one undergoes behavioral and cultural diversity (Crisp and Turner, 2011). This precondition has to be achieved in a manner that confronts stereotypical anticipations. The same experience has intellectual consequences that echo across a myriad of areas. Crisp and Turner explores these aspects of their theory and research design by using the United States history and contemporary society as a sample. Crisp and Turner’s research model shapes the requirements and procedures people needed to adapt to the experience of interactive and cultural diversity cognitively, as well as the subsequent cross-field advantages that ensue. The theory of social classification and research define this model. Summary Crisp and Turner drew proof from a variety of literary works that back this model. These works touched on racism, bigotry, institutional prejudice, social development, and White identity. This way, Crisp and Turner could amass a variety of different diversity preconditions and directly draw counterparts between study programs that have concentrated on both witnessing others who are cross-cultural and being individually cross-cultural (Crisp and Turner, 2011). Results from Crisp and Turner’s incorporative research indicate that living through diversity that confronts anticipations might not just encourage greater tolerance, but have advantages as well. These advantages are more important than intergroup associations and diverse factors of mental functioning. Overview of the Content and Discussion of the Findings and Conclusions In Crisp and Turner’s study, they apply an enhanced model of psychological adaptation to the precondition of interactive and cultural diversity. This model, Categorization-Processing-Adaption-Generalization (CPAG), summarizes four phases wherein living through diversity can lead to generalized psychological adaptability. The first part of the CPAG model stipulated conditions for classification (Crisp and Turner, 2011). People in the United States ought to live through diversity in a manner that confronts stereotypical anticipations. If living through diversity does not entail stereotypical discrepancies, there will be no adaptation. As a result, current stereotypical anticipations influence the opinions and behaviors of the society. If society meets these classification circumstances, terms of processing also ought to be appropriate for activating a procedure for discrepancy-solution. The second part of the CPAG model discovered that when the “perceiver” of diversity in society was not inspired or capable of participating in the discrepancy-solution, adaptation did not take place (Crisp and Turner, 2011). As a result, current stereotypical anticipations once more influenced opinions and behaviors. More specifically, the “perceiver” overlooked one of the contradictory classifications to alleviate the stereotypical irregularity. When terms for both classification and processing are achieved, a discrepancy-solution procedure begins. One can break down the discrepancy-solution procedure into two resource-challenging elaborative sub-protocols, which are the overpowering of stereotypical knowledge and improved procreative thinking. This procedure also leads to an “individuated” image of the met person. This impression is the foundation of the third part of the CPAG model. When living through diversity does not repeat, there is no adaptation (Crisp and Turner, 2011). Similarly, when the person fails to involve discrepancy solution as a reaction to future involvements, adaptation does not occur. As a result, opinions and behaviors go back to dependence on current stereotypes. With a myriad of diversity experiences and the recurrent involvement of discrepancy solution, an American will adapts (Davies, Steele, and Markus, 2008). As a result, he or she takes a broad view proof of the cognitive adaptability across a myriad of opinions and behavior. This view brings in the fourth part of the CPAG model, which is oversimplified adaptability (Crisp and Turner, 2011). Oversimplified adaptability becomes obvious by prevention of stereotype-based material in hypercritical situations that call for irregularity solutions. This allows the society to make limited cognitive resources available for the procreative element of the procedure. Consequently, there are relatively improved performances in comparison to individuals who do not adapt. Crisp and Turner’s analysis contends that living through diversity that confronts current stereotypical anticipations can be advantageous to American individuals and the respective community (Crisp and Turner, 2011). Crisp and Turner’s study had significant implications. First, academic approaches that integrate the experience of stereotypically confronting diversity ought to aid in the enhancement of cognitive adaptability and innovation. This way, the approaches can facilitate self-assurance and the liberalism necessary for reflecting on counter-normative philosophy. Such approaches might encourage the inquisition of United States’ dominant sociopolitical climate (Guimond et al., 2013). This is because it is under this climate that United States’ citizens find themselves, as well as the social innovation approaches necessary for influencing social change. Crisp and Turner’s research supports the need to adopt a broader point of view in studies on diversity (Crisp and Turner, 2011). This point of view relates backgrounds like cross-cultural contact and social effects such as discrimination and intergroup prejudice to classification impacts and cognitive procedures. The notion that oversimplified advantages can amass from the involvement of stereotypically problematic diversity is an echo of the United States’ society evolving cross-cultural communities. Crisp and Turner’s findings and discussion depict how studies on social classification can give a point of synthesis where future researchers can connect the experience of wider interactive and cultural movements to individual reasoning and behavior (Vasquez et al., 2006). As the conventional boundaries that wrote off a huge part of the 1900s collapse slowly, comprehending these and other mental and interactive effects originating from the experience of social and cultural diversity will turn into a progressively crucial effort. Conclusion Crisp and Turner’s research model shapes the requirements and procedures people needed to adapt to the experience of interactive and cultural diversity cognitively, as well as the subsequent cross-field advantages that ensue. The theory of social classification and research defined this model. Crisp and Turner’s study only improves on their new theory of diversity and multicultural interaction. I think the article addresses current diversity issues by focusing on interactive and cultural diversity under the proper terms. This way, the researchers encourage profounder egalitarianism in social approaches and behavior (Comas-Díaz, 2009). This is very applicable in the American society, considering it comprises of cultures whose members are distributed disproportionately across the nation demographically and professionally (Davies, Steele, and Markus, 2008). The findings support current diversity issues by coming up with and applying a discrepancy “resolution” that allows advantages that prolong intergroup associations. This resolution is only achievable through a procedure of intellectual adaptation. References Comas-Díaz, L. (2009). Changing psychology: History and legacy of the society for the psychological study of ethnic minority issues. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(4), 400-408. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (2), 242-266. Davies, P. G., Steele, C. M., & Markus, H. R. (2008). A nation challenged the impact of foreign threat on Americas tolerance for diversity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (2), 308-318.  Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., . . . Zick, A. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (6), 941-958. Vasquez, M. J. T., Lott, B., García-Vázquez, E., Grant, S. K., Iwamasa, G. Y., Molina, L. E., . . . Vestal-Dowdy, E. (2006). Personal reflections: Barriers and strategies in increasing diversity in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(2), 157-172. Read More