Todas las erratas

It is relevant to clarify that the focus of this section is the students’ drawings of some

professions, which might illustrate stereotypical views. This concept needs to be distinguished from that of learning or having stereotypes. It has been proposed that social stereotyping cannot be non-verbal (Stangor and Schaller, 1996), suggesting that an element of dialogue is required for a perspective to be shared. The findings from analysis of the students’ drawings are a facet of note with respect to the assertion of the need for dialogue, as there may be implications of group behaviour to be seen in the drawings. It is noted that the students’ drawings may only indicate stereotypical views, not where or how they are formed.

Allport (1954) explored how the attribution of a noun to a category is a fundamental element of our social lives, and that the application of particular nouns to certain categories can be

92

exceptionally powerful. Of particular salience in Allport’s work was describing a person in terms of ethnic origin. Stangor and Schaller (1996) extend Allport’s analogies further, citing how both benign and derogatory nouns, can be used to categorise people into groups, as indicators of stereotyping. They continued by exploring how these views are promulgated and propagated through language and communication. Maass et al. (1989) had already suggested that

stereotyping was more overt when considering undesirable behaviours, and that an initial abstraction is likely to produce additional congruent information, adding to the negativity of the initial stereotype.

The relevance of such concepts to IPE has been identified by some authors. Tunstall-Pedoe et al. (2003) proposed that negative attributions assigned to some professions could be as a result of stereotypical views expressed to students by both clinicians and academics. It has been proposed that students enter higher education with pre-conceptions of the profession they are proposing to enter (Foster and Macleod-Clark, 2015; Ateah et al., 2011; Hean et al., 2006; Hind et al., 2003). As much under-graduate health and social care education then occurs in uni-professional settings the disparate experiences, assumptions and learning may seem inevitable (Ryland et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2015; Veerapen and Purkis, 2014; Lewitt et al. 2010), leading some authors to articulate the need for educators to be open-minded (Croker et al., 2016) in order to mitigate potential negative implications for service user care (Jacobsen and Lindqvist, 2009).

The role of media in influencing stereotypes has limited exposure in literature, although in 1954 Allport cited media influence as being extremely important. It could be suggested that with the ubiquitous presence of the internet, and multiplicity of communication methods in contemporary society, any influence facilitated by the media is likely to be underestimated. Stangor and Schaller (1996) recognised the much greater potential influence of multimedia compared to interpersonal communication, and their suggestions pre-date the widespread use of social media on mobile electronic devices.

However, it could be that the importance contemporary society places on equality and diversity (Legislation.gov.uk, 2010) may be a moderating factor in the publication of stereotypical

opinions in published, established media, such as newspapers. An opposing opinion could be that the extent to which social media, such as Facebook™, is beyond legislation may reinforce the influence of stereotypical thinking. If parallels are drawn with the widespread portrayal of

93

aggression in the media and its acknowledged effects (Krahe, 2012; Anderson and Huesmann, 2003), it seems reasonable that stereotypical views can also be communicated in a similar way. There are a number of psychological factors that influence stereotyping and are relevant to IPE. Self-fulfilling prophecies affect how groups behave towards each other (Wright and Taylor, 2003; McGarty et al., 2002); attitudes held by an individual can instigate altered behaviour, which then causes reciprocally altered behaviour in the target of the expectancy (Karremans and Finkenauer, 2012; Hilton and von Hippel, 1996). Relating this to IPE if a student from one professional group believes members of another profession to be arrogant, interactions between the two may occur in such a way that the belief is reinforced. The phenomenon of covariation, where one believes separate characteristics are related (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008), may add to the strength and commonality of such interactions.

Furthermore, expectation states theory applies to groups performing a common task (Nijstad and Van Knippenberg, 2012) and can appear to relate directly to IPE; the theory suggests a group’s characteristics indicate to others the degree to which their contribution will be useful in the task at hand. Using the example of arrogance again, contributions of a group held to be arrogant may be held in less regard than those of a group believed to be more diffident.

Phenomena that support individuals in protecting or enhancing their self-esteem are also relevant to the impact of stereotyping and may be particularly important during IPE when students from different professional groups have to work together. As mentioned on previously (Section 4.1.2) it could be suggested that IPE creates a situation where perceived status of professional groups becomes more salient and overt, which may cause some students anxiety. Stangor and Schaller (1996) suggested that implementing a stereotypical strategy to simplify communication was more common at times of crisis.

While I would be hesitant in describing IPE as a time of crisis it would seem realistic to suggest that students may identify a need for some self-preservation, which could have the effect of increasing the impetus to employ categorisation (Turner, 1982; Tajfel and Forgas, 1981). Such categorisation could lead to students perceiving members of other professional groups more, or less, similar than they really are because a level of anxiety may have a negative impact on the efficacy of how information is processed (Hilton and von Hippel, 1996). For example, if one professional group perceive another as more academically able than their own, they would be

94

likely to self-affirm, and identify a different characteristic which they perceive as stronger in their own group as being more pertinent. An illustrative example can be found in Carpenter (1995) where medical students were identified as confident and the nursing students as caring. Similarly, a group might employ self-serving bias, where other groups’ attributes are

misrepresented in order to enhance or protect self-esteem (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008).