Sociocultural level of analysis - Mr Hansson's IB ...



Sociocultural level of analysis

 

Outline principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, the social and cultural environment influences individual behaviour; we want connectedness with, and a sense of belonging to, others; we construct our conceptions of the individual and social self)

 

Explain how principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis may be demonstrated in research (that is, theories and/or studies)

 

§The social and cultural environment influences the individual´s behavior

|Name and year of study |Yuki et al (2005) |

|Aim |To determine if people automatically categorized themselves and favor in their groups |

| |across cultures. The experiment was to compare U.S. and Japanese university student in |

| |three scenarios. |

|Research method |Two laboratory experiments were done |

|Procedure |Experiment 1: |

| |Subjects were 171 male and female from Ohio State University, 171 male and female from |

| |Hokkaido University students and 28 male and female Hokkaido Education University |

| |students. Three scenarios were used: first, someone is from an in-group; second, someone |

| |is from out-group with potential (no actual) connection between the out-group members |

| |through the participants’ acquaintance; third, someone is from out-group that suggested |

| |with no potential connection. The questionnaires were given to participants about asking |

| |someone to watch luggage in an airport, allowing someone to borrow money at a restaurant, |

| |and buying concert tickets online from an individuals. Later they were told to decide |

| |which person you would trust from any of the scenarios defined above. |

| |  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |It replicated the first experiment, except it used a real money allocation game to test |

| |trust in risky situation where participants were told they would receive money based on |

| |their decisions to trust unknown others. The aim of the experiment is to test the |

| |differences in trusting in-groups and out-groups because people value in-groups and make |

| |distinctions between in-group and out-group. Subjects were 146 male and female students |

| |from Ohio State University, and 122 male and female students from Hokkaido University. |

| |Three scenarios were the same was the experiment #1 (in-group members, out-group members |

| |with potential connections and out-group members with no connections). No rules were made |

| |to indicating the amount was to be allocated to any person and allcator (who received the |

| |money) decides how much money to keep and how much money to give to the recipient |

| |(received the money). Before the experiment, participants were told that they were part of|

| |a real-time online money allocation game and the computer would randomly assign the role |

| |of allocator or recipient. In real, the computers were never connected and the real |

| |participants were always assigned to be the recipient. They had to decide whether to trust|

| |the other unknown person or not in each of the three scenarios (dependent variables). |

| |During the experiment, participants were given two choices; first, either accepts a |

| |smaller amount of money 3 U.S dollars or 400 yen for sure, second, to allow the other |

| |person to allocate the larger amount as desired. And three trials were done for each |

| |condition. At the end of the experiment, then participants were debriefed the true nature |

| |of the experiment. And participants were filled out a questionnaire about their |

| |identification with the in-group. This would allow the researchers to correlate trust with|

| |being a U.S or Japanese participants. |

|Findings |Experiment 1: |

| |The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the unknown person from the in-group|

| |more than they trusted either out-group person. In addition, the Japanese sample was more |

| |likely to trust the out-group member with potential connection. In contrast, the U.S. |

| |sample did not trust either out-group member, even if the person had a potential |

| |connection.  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |The results showed that U.S students trusted the in-group far more than either type |

| |of out-groups. No significant difference between both out-groups. In contrast, Japanese |

| |students trusted the in-group and out-group with potential connection. A significant |

| |difference was found between trusting the potential connected and the unconnected |

| |out-group. |

|Conclusion |Yuki suggested that participants had different reason for trusting groups because of their|

| |cultures and different views. U.S participants had greater identification with an in-group|

| |that strongly correlated with their likelihood to trust someone. In contrast, Japanese |

| |identification with a group was correlated with the extent to which they felt an indirect |

| |connection with a depersonalized group. These correlations are consistent with the theory |

| |that East Asians are more likely to make judgments about groups based on relational needs |

| |and Americans are more likely to make judgments about depersonalized groups based on |

| |categories. |

|Methodological strength |The experiment was well controlled and standardized. |

| |High generalisability to other cultures. |

|Methodological weakness |Interpretation bias |

|Ethical considerations |Students were later informed the true nature of the experiment |

§We want a connectedness and a sense of belonging to other people (social identity theory)

- Our social identity, a part of our identity is derived from the social groups that we belong to and that we do not belong to (Defining who we are by who we aren’t)

- We derive self esteem by positively differentiating our in-group from out-groups

- We therefore tend to categorize our social environment into groups

- We tend to favourize our in-group over out-groups

|Name and year of study |Tajfel et al (1971) |

|Aim |To demonstrate that merely putting people in to groups (categorization) is sufficient for |

| |people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the others. |

|Research method |Two laboratory experiments were done |

|Procedure |Experiment 1: |

| |Subjects were 64 schoolboys of fourteen and fifteen years old. All subjects took part in a|

| |visual test, involving estimating the number of dots on a screen.  The boys were informed |

| |that they would be divided into groups such as “over-estimators” or “under-estimators” |

| |according to the results of visual test. In fact, they were randomly grouped. Later |

| |participants were asked to do a task where they had to allocate reward and penalty points |

| |to other boys, both in-group and out-group. Each boy was tested in isolation. The boys |

| |were told that they cannot allocate points to themselves and would not know the identity |

| |of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since |

| |everyone would be given to a number code. During the test location, each boy received a |

| |booklet, which showed how they can allocate points to other boys. There were three |

| |different choices (in-group and in-group, out-group and out-group, in-group and |

| |out-group). |

| |  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |48 boys of fourteen and fifteen years old were used as subjects and all the subjects knew |

| |each other. The boys were shown slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, |

| |which were shown without the painter’s signature and were asked to express their |

| |preferences. Later subjects were again randomly divided into two groups, supposedly based |

| |upon their performances for the paintings. In this experiment, matrices were employed |

| |which allowed the experimenters to investigate three variables. The three variables |

| |were: maximum joint profit – where boys could give the largest reward to members of both |

| |groups, largest possible reward to in-group – where the boys could choose the largest |

| |reward for the member within their group regardless of the reward to the boy from other |

| |group, maximum difference – where boys could choose the largest possible difference in |

| |reward between members of the different groups (in favour of the in-group). Maximum joint |

| |profit and giving the largest reward to the in-group would both achieved by choosing the |

| |last pair in the row, giving 19 to a member of your own group and 25 to a member of the |

| |other group. However, to maximize your own rewards while also maximizing the difference, |

| |you might well choose one of the middle boxes and give 12 to a member of your own group |

| |and 11 to a member of the other group.  |

|Findings |Experiment 1: |

| |The results showed that within the same groups, fairness was displayed. When points had to|

| |be allocated to members of two different groups at the same time, boys tend to give more |

| |points to the boy in their group. |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |The results were boys choose maximum difference in favorism of the in-group. Boys were |

| |decided not to give maximum points within their group but only if it’s higher than the |

| |other group. This clearly shows that the participants were favor within their in-groups. |

|Conclusion |Randomly categorizing boys into meaningless groups, in-group bias and out-group |

| |discrimination was shown. This means that bias and discrimination against the out-group |

| |comes automatically in any group situation without any competition or hostility but simply|

| |from categorization. Lastly, the results also show that the process of categorization |

| |oneself into a group gives a distinct meaning to the individual’s behavior, therefore |

| |creating a positive valued social identity. |

|Methodological strength |Good experimental controls |

|Methodological weakness |Lacks ecological validity |

| |Contains demand characteristics |

| |Possible interpretation bias |

|Ethical considerations |Students were later inform the true nature of the experiment |

Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, participant/naturalistic observation, interviews, case studies)

 

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

- An experiment is an exploration of a certain phenomenon in such a way that the independent variables are manipulated by the experimenter and consequently give rise to the dependent variables

- The experiment relies on controlling certain variables, and the manipulation of other variables to test and support a hypothesis.

-It involves a clear relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

-Includes naturalistic observations, field experiments, and lab experiments.

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

- A participant observation is a type of research method, where the participant is monitored as they are participating in a particular activity, group, etc.

- This method may involve the researcher merely overlooking the participants, or even getting involved with the participant to a certain degree.

- Basically, the researcher is trying to find out what it is like to be the participant (the insider) while remaining the outsider.

How they are used

Participant Observation

Festinger, Riecken and Schacter’s 1956 study was illustrated by a participant observation aimed to observe a member of a particular religious cult to support the Cognitive Dissonance Theory which involves uncomfortable feelings when holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. In the 1950s, at that time, there had been a report on a religious cult that claimed to be receiving messages from outer space, with the belief that the world was to end in a great flood, but members of the cult would be rescued in an UFO. The researchers took the opportunity to observe and overlook their behaviors. As part of the research, the researchers themselves had infiltrated the cult and observed their behaviors among the members of the cult. As the prophecy was still widely accepted among the group members, the members actively promoted this prophecy and in extreme cases, sold their houses and resigned from their jobs to prepare for Doom’s Day. The researchers wanted to see the member’s reactions had the prophecy not come true. When Doom’s Day for the members never came, more and more people left the cult. They found other explanations for why the day never came, such as praying enough that their city had been saved. This proved the Cognitive Dissonance Theory right, because it predicted that the members would change their thinking or behavior when there was no dissonance between the cognitions.

Experiment

Tajfel et al’s study which was aimed to describe and identify one of the three elements: categorization.  Furthermore, the study proposed to portray how this categorization will eventually lead to discrimination in favor of our in-group.  The Tajfel et. Al study was made up of 64 male students aged from 14-15 and was divided into two experiements.  The first experiment initially began by conducting a procedure which aimed to categorize these 64 subjects.  The boys entered the experiment in groups of 8 where each of these groups consisted of students who were a part of the same school “house”, thus implying that they knew each other fairly well.  All the 64 boys were brought into a lecture room and were briefed by the experimenters who claimed that they were testing the visual judgements of the boys.  In order to determine the boys’ supposed “visual judgement”, the experimenters flashed forty clusters of dots on a projected screen and asked the boys to estimate and record on their score sheets, how many dots were in each cluster.  At this point of the first experiment, the real categorization begins.  After finishing the test, half of the boys were to be told that they were either a part of a group who overestimated or underestimated the amount of dots and the other half were to be told that within this group, some boys were accurate in their estimation while others weren’t.  Not long after the test, the judgements were made and the experimenter, randomly distributed half of the boys to the first condition and the other half to the second condition.  Following the random distribution, the subjects, according to their group, were brought into two different rooms.  They were given a set of matrices which aimed to fulfill the task of rewarding and penalizing members, which were represented by code numbers rather than names, that were a part of his group and members that weren’t.  The rewards and penalizations in this case, were in the form of pennies such that one point would be equivalent to one tenth of a penny.  Within this set of matrices, the boys were required to make three types of choices and choose accordingly in the matrices given: the first choice consisted of the matrix where both the bottom and top row referred to members of the group the subject was in, the second choice consisted of the matrix where both the bottom and top row referred to members of the group the subject was not a part of and the third choice consisted of a matrix where the top row referred to a member of the subject’s group and the bottom row referred to a member that was not part of the subject’s group.  

 

Why they are used

Experiment(Tajfel et. al)

- Experiments are the most efficient among the research methods, did not use interviews and thus, results may not have been too subjective but rather come from an instinctive response from the participant.

- used in order to find out cause and effect of social behavior. To isolate the independent variables while controlling for other variables. The control of variables and the laboratory may however reduce the ecological validity

Participant Observation( Festinger, Riecken and Schacter)

- Participant observations are used to gain insight into a deeper level of understanding contexts, relationships, and behaviors of a group of people. In the study, this method was used to survey the behaviors of the participants as they were in a particular cult and had a strong belief about something, and also how they altered their thinking after two conflicting ideas have come to consensus in their minds.

- used in order to study natural behaviour (reduce something called the Hawthorne effect) [People change their behavior when they are being observed] 

- increase ecological validity. This however is less ethical (use of deception)

Evaluate the research methods

Participant Observation –

Participant observations are involve qualitative data since it is based on a real life situation that involves an actual event, rather than a stimulation of an event like an experiment. However, they can be rather time-consuming, since it involves observing the participants thinking, behavior, and so on, so it is not so practical. Also, this method may also involve quite a bit of researcher bias, since the whole thing is based on the researcher’s observations. It also lacks validity, because there are many external, uncontrolled factors, that may have influenced certain behaviors. Nevertheless, participant observations can be useful in gaining insight to deeper matters such as contexts, relationships, and behaviors.

Experiment –

Experimenting is a widely used research method in psychology which involves stimulating an event to find out people’s reactions to certain situations. It clearly defines a link between the independent and dependent variable. Because it is set up, rather than happening in real life, this method lacks ecological validity. Experiments have high replicability, and are well controlled, since the variables are manipulated by the researcher. This in turn causes it to also be somewhat biased.  Nevertheless, experiments are still a widely used research method because although the study might occur in a lab, to a certain extent, they can be applied to the real world. 

 

Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis

 

1. Use of deception

-When the participant is deceived of the true aims of a study

-Sometimes necessary because otherwise participants might alter behaviour to fit the experimenters´ expectations

-There should be strong scientific or medical justification

-Costs should be weighed against benefits

 

Possible effects:

-Deception prevents participants to give informed consent. Participants might not want to participate in the future. However, informed consent may decrease ecological validity because when people know they are being watched, they do not act naturally.

-Participants may feel embarrassed or have lowered self esteem

-Use of deception may increase ecological validity: When participants don't know they are being watched, the conditions are more realistic, and they behave more naturally. 

 

Studies:

 

Milgram (1963)

The aim of the Milgram study was to measure the extent to which participants would readily submit to authoritative figures who require them, upon instruction, to perform an act that causes disagreement with their own consciences. The method used to acquire data was through a laboratory experiment. There were three main roles, which consisted of the experimenter, the learner, and the teacher. The participants, who were told that this experiment was part of a learning experiment, drew from pieces of paper that would determine what their roles were; however, the experiments made sure that the participants were always the teachers. The learner, who was played by an actor, was placed into a separate room, while the experimenter sat in the same room as the participant and played the role of the authoritative figure. The teacher, or the participant, was given a test shock so they had an idea of the ‘shocks’ that the learner was supposed to receive. The participants were asked to read a list of words to the learner, and the learner would then press a button to specify his response; if the answer was wrong, the teacher would deliver shocks to the learner – with each wrong answer being an increase of 15 voltages to the shocks delivered. During the experiment, the participants were deceived into believing that the learner was receiving real shocks due to the pre-recorded screams emitted for each number of voltage increase; however, in actuality, no shocks were ever delivered. As the number of voltages delivered rose, banging on the wall was heard and was ensued by total silence where the participants were led to believe the learner had fainted. The findings of this experiment were that the number of people who administered the maximum voltage was a much higher amount than polled before the experiment (which was 1.2%); however, the experiment revealed that around 2/3 of the participants delivered a striking 450 volts to the ‘learner’.  Though some participants were uneasy about continuing the experiment, when they were pressured into doing so, they continued administering higher voltages of shocks than they would have imagined doing.

 

   Use of deception:       

                1. Participants were told the main aim was to investigate effects of punishment on learning.

                -Necessary because if participants had known they were being observed by obedience, they would either deliberately obey less or, less likely, unconsciously alter behavior to fit experimenters’ expectations by obeying more.

 

2. Participants were told that they were giving real shocks to the “learner” when it was a set-up.

                                -Necessary because if participants had known the “learner” didn’t receive shocks, the aim, which tests how much they were willing to inflict pain on others when under authority, wouldn’t be accomplished.

                                 -Participants suffered psychological distress: sweat, tremble, stutter, etc. and on one occasion, a violent fit. To return them into their original psychological

                                state, they were debriefed.

                               

Steele & Aronson (1995)

The aim of this experiment was to see the effect of stereotypes on the performance of people. The method used to acquire data for this experiment was through a laboratory experiment. The experimenters gave out a difficult verbal test consisting of multiple choice questions that lasted for 30 minutes. These tests were given to a group of participants consisting of African and European Americans. A group was told that it was a test of their verbal abilities. Another group of a similar composition was given the same test, but they were told that it was a laboratory task that was used to study how certain problems are generally solved. The findings of this experiment were that, in the first group, the African American participants scored lower than their European American counterparts. However, the 2nd group scored higher than the previous group, with the African American scores equaling that of the European Americans. The experimenters found that the other studies conducted on female participants and participants of lower social class, the results were similar to the first experiment. Steele and Aronson then subsequently concluded that the effects of stereotype threat can be found affecting anyone of any social class or race –if, and only on the condition, the people believe within the stereotype itself.

                                                      

Use of deception:

                1. First round: participants were told the aim was to test verbal ability.

                                -Necessary as to observe whether existing stereotypes (African Americans are worse in English compared to European Americans) can influence

                                performance.

                                -Acts as independent variable (stereotype present)

                2. Second round: participants were told the aim was to observe how certain problems are generally solved.

                                -Necessary as to observe performance when no stereotypes are present.

                                -Acts as control (no stereotype present)

 

2.  Protection from harm

 

-          Avoid any situation that may cause a participant to experience psychological or physical damage

 

                Study:

The aim of the Stanford Prison Experiment was to study the psychological effects a prison environment would have on prisoners. Dr. Philip Zimbardo rounded up participants who were mentally, and physically, healthy to become prisoners for this experiment. Their selected participants were 21 white, middle-class males who told that they would take part in a two week prison simulation experiment. The participants, who were selected to become prisoners, were brought into the makeshift prison, which was located in an underground basement of a building in Stanford, and were forced to wear prisoner attire; the participants, who were selected to become guards, had their guard uniforms, sunglasses, and night sticks handed to them. The ‘prisoners’ were each assigned a number instead of their names, and they had a chain around their feet –constant reminders of their positions within the prison setting. During the experiment, the researchers told the ‘guards’ that they could create sentiments of boredom, fear, and obedience within the prisoners – all traits that would lead to a feeling of weakness and subjection. At the introduction of the experiment, the ‘guards’ were met with various acts of disobedience and rebellion; however, as the experiment wore on, each prisoner began to submit to the guard’s authority as they suffered from public humiliation and constant stress. The guards would dispense punishment upon prisoners who were particularly stubborn by isolating them in solitary confinement for up to hours, even days, in hopes of breaking them. It soon became apparent that bad behaviour was severely punished as the guards revoked the prisoner’s privileges such as meals; however, good behaviour did not do much good either as the guards taunted the prisoners for being too obedient. Events such as being able to use the bathroom soon became an incentive as the prisoners suffered from constant psychological torture. The findings of the abruptly terminated experiment, after a period of 6 days, were that the prisoners had completely submitted to total obedience and were extremely compliant to whatever the guards ordered; the prisoners themselves even forgot, at one point during the experiment, their names as they introduced themselves as their assigned numbers - indicating that they had completely slipped into character. The guards, too, had assumed the role of their character and were abusive with their authority. The participants of this experiment had become completely absorbed with their role-playing that they had forgotten that who they were, initially, and that they were not prisoners or guards.

                Protection from harm:

1.       At first the participants signed agreement saying that they understood that they were giving up some of their civil rights.

2.       The experiment in the prison proved to be so realistic and brutal due to abuse from the prison guards, that the experiment had to be stopped after 6 days.

3.       The participants began to break down mentally, experiencing symptoms ranging from crying, depression, etc.

4.       These measures taken during the experiment produced unexpected results, which effectively proved the experiments point.

Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behaviour

• Dispositional Factors: Factors such as personality, schemas, genes, and hormones occurring inside the individual which can then affect the individual's behaviour

• Situational Factors: Behaviour is affected by the situation the person is in

o Dispositional Factors was explored by Crutchfield's conforming personality theory (1955)

 

▪ Aim: to see the influences of a stronger personality against the weaker personality

 

▪ Procedure: He gave his test subjects a number of their personality, types of I.Q tests in order to differentiate the difference of their personality.

 

▪ Findings: subjects who conformed towards the experimental situations were

▪ l. less inteclectually competent - more open to expert power of others

▪ 2. had less ego - less confident in their own opinion

▪ 3. had less leadership - less able to assert their own opinion

▪ 4. more narrow minded - inclining to stick with the majority answer

 

▪ Conclusion: The weaker personality has a high tendency in conforming towards the stronger personality.

▪ Situational Factors are explained through many studies, one being Zimbardo's Standford's Prison Experiment

▪ Standford Prison Experiment--Quiet Rage

▪ Aim: To see the effect of situational and external factors on the behavior of young college boys

▪ Procedure:

1. Psychologically fit, healthy, and young male volunteers were called in

2. Half were randomly chosen as prisoners and the other half as gaurds

3. The next day life-like arrests took place and the volunteer prisoners had to go through all the procedures during an arrest (e.g. mug shots, finger prints, degrading uniforms)

4. The gaurds were given costumes and sticks and sunglasses to accompany the costume.

5. The guards were asked to treat the prisoners as real criminals and the prisoners were made to do degrading acts

6. After instances of emotional breakdowns, the experiment was called to a stop

▪ Findings:

1. The costume gave the gaurds both the feeling of authority and anonymity and therefore were able to forget who they really were.

2. The prisoners had forgotten who they were (forgot their names and instead referred to themselves as numbers that they had been given)

▪ Conclusion:

1. External factors, pressures, and roles can clearly determine the behavior of an individual

 

Discuss two errors in attribution (for example, fundamental attribution error, illusory correlation, self serving bias)

 

Fundamental Attribution Error

Definition:

To make internal (dispositional) attributions for others’ behavior rather than external (situational) ones (even when there may be equally convincing evidence for both types of cause).

Studies:

Jones and Harris (1967): Jones and Harris hypothesized that people were more likely to attribute freely chosen behaviors to disposition, and chance-directed behaviors to situation. This hypothesis was proven wrong by the fundamental attribution error. Researchers had participants read pro- and anti-Fidel Castro essays. Then, they were asked to rate the attitudes of the writers who wrote pro-Castro essays. When participants were told that writers freely chose the positions they took (for or against Castro), they rated the writers of the pro-Castro essays as having positive attitudes toward Castro. However, contradicting Jones and Harris' initial hypothesis, when the subjects were told that the writer's positions were determined by chance, they still rated writers who spoke in favor of Castro as having a more positive attitude towards him. In other words, the subjects were unable to see the influence of the situational constraints placed upon the writers; they could not refrain from attributing sincere belief to the writers.

Lee et. al. (1977): University students were randomly allocated to one of three roles: a game show host, contestants of the game show or members of the audience. The game show host constructed the questions and the audience watched the game show through the series of questions. When the game show was over, the audience were asked to rank the intelligence of the people who had taken part. They consistently ranked the game show host as the most intelligent, even with knowledge that the host had made his own questions.

Evaluation:

Jones and Harris (1967): This study has problems with ecological validity because the task given to the participants is not realistic. There may also be an extraneous variable, which are the opinions of the participants on Castro. Nevertheless, this study is highly replicable although quality essays are required. The variables were well controlled and the study is very simple but effective. This study is also relatively ethical except for the fact that the participants had to be deceived of the true aim of the study for the results to be valid. This also means that informed consent would not be possible.

Lee et. al. (1977): This study may have problems with demand characteristics as the participants may be suspicious of the unique set-up of the experiment. The study may also have problems with generalizability as the participants were only university students. In addition, it is also difficult to replicate. Nevertheless, this study is high in ecological activity because game shows are very common. Elsewhere, it is also high in external reliability because it is true that hosts do look smartest in game shows and people tend to ignore the fact that they made the questions up or they already know all the answers. This study is also very sound ethically aside from the fact that the participants were deceived of the true aims of the study, which meant that informed consent was not possible.

Fundamental Attribution Error: This concept has much empirical support and is extremely useful. It can be applied to many things such as the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, reliability of projective tests and formation of stereotypes. However, there are obviously some ethical problems with the supporting studies. In addition, cross-cultural studies in countries such as India and Japan have shown that fundamental attribution error is not always present in collectivistic cultures.

 

Illusory Correlation

Definition:

To overestimate a link between two variables or see a relationship where no relationship exists.

Study:

Chapman and Chapman (1967): Beginning clinicians observed draw-a-person test drawing randomly paired (unknowingly to participants) with symptom statements of patients. Although the relationship between symptoms and drawings were absent, participants rated a high associative strength between symptom and drawing characteristics (e.g., paranoia and drawing big eyes).

Evaluation:

Chapman and Chapman (1967): The study has problems with ecological validity as the task presented to the participants is not something that happens in everyday life. The study also has problems with generalizability as beginning clinicians is not a good representative of the general population. There may also be much demand characteristics as the participants may have conformed to common notions in hope of not ruining the experiment by drawing unexpected things. Nevertheless, the study is easily replicated. Ethically, the participants were deceived of the true aims of the experiment, which meant that informed consent was not possible.

Illusory Correlation: This concept has much empirical support and is extremely useful. It can be applied to many things such as the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, reliability of projective tests and formation of stereotypes. However, there are obviously some ethical problems with the supporting studies.

 

Sources: Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24, Errors in Attribution powerpoint, by Daniel Hansson

 

Evaluate social identity Theory, making reference to two relevant studies

Established by Tajfel & Turner

Outline

• Our social identity, a part of our identity is derived from the social groups that we belong to and that we do not belong to (Defining who we are by who we aren’t)

• We derive self esteem by positively differentiating our in-group from out-groups

• We therefore tend to categorize our social environment into groups

• We tend to favourize our in-group over out-groups

Evaluation (+)

• Supporting researches are well controlled and standardized

• Application (Reducing prejudice)

• Understanding of prejudice

• Can be used for predictions of social behaviour

• Can be generalized to other cultures

Evaluation (-)

• Identification with an in-group may sometimes lead to low self esteem 

• Misidentification with an in-group

• We may develop our self esteem and identity but emphasizing our uniqueness and originality

• Problems of generalisability and ecological validity of supporting studies

• Possible cultural differences for in-group favouritism

Source: Mr.Hansson's powerpoint (slightly simplified/modified)

Two studies support the social identity theory

|Name and year of study |Tajfel et al (1971) |

|Aim |To demonstrate that merely putting people in to groups (categorization) is sufficient for |

| |people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the others. |

|Research method |Two laboratory experiments were done |

|Procedure |Experiment 1: |

| |Subjects were 64 schoolboys of fourteen and fifteen years old. All subjects took part in a|

| |visual test, involving estimating the number of dots on a screen.  The boys were informed |

| |that they would be divided into groups such as “over-estimators” or “under-estimators” |

| |according to the results of visual test. In fact, they were randomly grouped. Later |

| |participants were asked to do a task where they had to allocate reward and penalty points |

| |to other boys, both in-group and out-group. Each boy was tested in isolation. The boys |

| |were told that they cannot allocate points to themselves and would not know the identity |

| |of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since |

| |everyone would be given to a number code. During the test location, each boy received a |

| |booklet, which showed how they can allocate points to other boys. There were three |

| |different choices (in-group and in-group, out-group and out-group, in-group and |

| |out-group). |

| |  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |48 boys of fourteen and fifteen years old were used as subjects and all the subjects knew |

| |each other. The boys were shown slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, |

| |which were shown without the painter’s signature and were asked to express their |

| |preferences. Later subjects were again randomly divided into two groups, supposedly based |

| |upon their performances for the paintings. In this experiment, matrices were employed |

| |which allowed the experimenters to investigate three variables. The three variables were: |

| |maximum joint profit – where boys could give the largest reward to members of both groups,|

| |largest possible reward to in-group – where the boys could choose the largest reward for |

| |the member within their group regardless of the reward to the boy from other group, |

| |maximum difference – where boys could choose the largest possible difference in reward |

| |between members of the different groups (in favour of the in-group). Maximum joint profit |

| |and giving the largest reward to the in-group would both achieved by choosing the last |

| |pair in the row, giving 19 to a member of your own group and 25 to a member of the other |

| |group. However, to maximize your own rewards while also maximizing the difference, you |

| |might well choose one of the middle boxes and give 12 to a member of your own group and 11|

| |to a member of the other group.  |

|Findings |Experiment 1: |

| |The results showed that within the same groups, fairness was displayed. When points had to|

| |be allocated to members of two different groups at the same time, boys tend to give more |

| |points to the boy in their group. |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |The results were boys choose maximum difference in favorism of the in-group. Boys were |

| |decided not to give maximum points within their group but only if it’s higher than the |

| |other group. This clearly shows that the participants were favor within their in-groups. |

|Conclusion |Randomly categorizing boys into meaningless groups, in-group bias and out-group |

| |discrimination was shown. This means that bias and discrimination against the out-group |

| |comes automatically in any group situation without any competition or hostility but simply|

| |from categorization. Lastly, the results also show that the process of categorization |

| |oneself into a group gives a distinct meaning to the individual’s behavior, therefore |

| |creating a positive valued social identity. |

|Methodological strength |Good experimental controls |

|Methodological weakness |Lacks ecological validity |

| |Contains demand characteristics |

| |Possible interpretation bias |

|Ethical considerations |Students were later inform the true nature of the experiment |

 

|Name and year of study |Yuki et al (2005) |

|Aim |To determine if people automatically categorized themselves and favor in their groups |

| |across cultures. The experiment was to compare U.S. and Japanese university student in |

| |three scenarios. |

|Research method |Two laboratory experiments were done |

|Procedure |Experiment 1: |

| |Subjects were 171 male and female from Ohio State University, 171 male and female from |

| |Hokkaido University students and 28 male and female Hokkaido Education University |

| |students. Three scenarios were used: first, someone is from an in-group; second, someone |

| |is from out-group with potential (no actual) connection between the out-group members |

| |through the participants’ acquaintance; third, someone is from out-group that suggested |

| |with no potential connection. The questionnaires were given to participants about asking |

| |someone to watch luggage in an airport, allowing someone to borrow money at a restaurant, |

| |and buying concert tickets online from an individuals. Later they were told to decide |

| |which person you would trust from any of the scenarios defined above. |

| |  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |It replicated the first experiment, except it used a real money allocation game to test |

| |trust in risky situation where participants were told they would receive money based on |

| |their decisions to trust unknown others. The aim of the experiment is to test the |

| |differences in trusting in-groups and out-groups because people value in-groups and make |

| |distinctions between in-group and out-group. Subjects were 146 male and female students |

| |from Ohio State University, and 122 male and female students from Hokkaido University. |

| |Three scenarios were the same was the experiment #1 (in-group members, out-group members |

| |with potential connections and out-group members with no connections). No rules were made |

| |to indicating the amount was to be allocated to any person and allcator (who received the |

| |money) decides how much money to keep and how much money to give to the recipient |

| |(received the money). Before the experiment, participants were told that they were part of|

| |a real-time online money allocation game and the computer would randomly assign the role |

| |of allocator or recipient. In real, the computers were never connected and the real |

| |participants were always assigned to be the recipient. They had to decide whether to trust|

| |the other unknown person or not in each of the three scenarios (dependent variables). |

| |During the experiment, participants were given two choices; first, either accepts a |

| |smaller amount of money 3 U.S dollars or 400 yen for sure, second, to allow the other |

| |person to allocate the larger amount as desired. And three trials were done for each |

| |condition. At the end of the experiment, then participants were debriefed the true nature |

| |of the experiment. And participants were filled out a questionnaire about their |

| |identification with the in-group. This would allow the researchers to correlate trust with|

| |being a U.S or Japanese participants. |

|Findings |Experiment 1: |

| |The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the unknown person from the in-group|

| |more than they trusted either out-group person. In addition, the Japanese sample was more |

| |likely to trust the out-group member with potential connection. In contrast, the U.S. |

| |sample did not trust either out-group member, even if the person had a potential |

| |connection.  |

| |Experiment 2: |

| |The results showed that U.S students trusted the in-group far more than either type of |

| |out-groups. No significant difference between both out-groups. In contrast, Japanese |

| |students trusted the in-group and out-group with potential connection. A significant |

| |difference was found between trusting the potential connected and the unconnected |

| |out-group. |

|Conclusion |Yuki suggested that participants had different reason for trusting groups because of their|

| |cultures and different views. U.S participants had greater identification with an in-group|

| |that strongly correlated with their likelihood to trust someone. In contrast, Japanese |

| |identification with a group was correlated with the extent to which they felt an indirect |

| |connection with a depersonalized group. These correlations are consistent with the theory |

| |that East Asians are more likely to make judgments about groups based on relational needs |

| |and Americans are more likely to make judgments about depersonalized groups based on |

| |categories. |

|Methodological strength |The experiment was well controlled and standardized. |

| |High generalisability to other cultures. |

|Methodological weakness |Interpretation bias |

|Ethical considerations |Students were later informed the true nature of the experiment |

 

 Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behaviour

 

Stereotyping:

Social perception of an individual in terms of group membership or physical attributes.  The generalization is made about a group and attributed to all members of the group; it can be good or bad. It is also a form of social categorization that affects the behavior of those who has stereotypes.  It can also be a schema or set of beliefs or expectations about a person based on his group membership.

Illusory Correlation – a process in which a person builds false connection between two variables that are not related or strengthen the connection between two loosely linked variables.

When we make this mistake, we find ways to ‘prove it’ or simply believe it to be true and affirm the correlation. This typically occurs when the things being correlated stand out distinctively. There is also invisible correlation where an actual correlation is missed. For example, the link between smoking and cancer was not realized for a long time.

 

Illusory Correlation helps explain how social stereotypes and prejudices happen.  

• David Hamilton and Terrence Rose (1980) found that stereotypes can lead to people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together.          

 

Confirmation Bias

It’s a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their bias or hypotheses.  People can reinforce their present attitude by selectively collecting new evidence: by interpreting in a biased way or recalling specific information from memory.

People tend to test their hypotheses in a one-sided manner.

The biases may appear in particular issues that are emotionally significant to the individual.

Confirmation biases are effects in information processing, distinct from behavioral confirmation effect in which people’s expectations influence their own behavior.

• They can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military and political contexts.

• It contributes to overconfidence in personal beliefs 

 

|Name and year of study |Hamilton and Gifford (1976) |

|Aim |To investigate the effect of illusory correlation on |

| |stereotyping of the minority |

|Research method |Lab experiment |

|Procedure |The researchers prepared a series of information about |

| |behavior of people that were in either group A (majority) or |

| |group B (minority), which only contain half the number of |

| |group A.  The behaviors in the study were divided into |

| |desirables and undesirables with the same ratio in both |

| |groups (9 desirables per 4 undesirables).  The sequence of |

| |the group and behavior were shown to the participant at |

| |random. After finish reading, the participants were asked to |

| |choose the group that they prefer.   |

|Findings |Most participants thought that group A is better than group |

| |B, even if they had similar good to bad ratio. |

|Conclusion |Group B were generally unfavorable among the participants |

| |because their undesirable behaviors appear rarer than group |

| |A’s, therefore the participant will tend to form an illusory |

| |correlation between group B and misconduct.  The result of |

| |this experiment can be applied to real life where minority |

| |group in the society were stereotyped to have stronger link |

| |with negative action than the majority (e.g. |

| |African-American) |

|Methodological strength |Usage of quantitative data gathering reduced researcher’s |

| |bias.  |

|Methodological weakness |Low ecological validity – was conducted in a lab, reading |

| |about behavior didn’t accurately model the real situation. |

| |Low control – The participants’ personality can affect the |

| |result. |

|Ethical considerations |- |

 

Effect on Behavior: Stereotype Threat

 

• Occurs when a person who is exposed to a stereotype is negatively affected in her behavior

• Stereotype threats turns on spotlight anxiety, which causes emotional distress and pressure that may undermine performance

• The threat becomes obvious when a group is told or shown that their group’s performance is worse than other groups

 

Supporting Studies

 

Steele & Aronson, 1995

 

Experiment 1:

           

            Involved African American and White college students who took a difficult test using items from the GRE Verbal Exam under one of two conditions. In the stereotype threat condition, students were told that their performance on the test would be a good indicator of their underlying intellectual abilities. In the non-threat condition, they were told that the test was simply a problem solving exercise and was not diagnostic of ability. Performance was compared in the two conditions after statistically controlling for self-reported SAT scores. African American participants performed less well than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition, but in the non-threat condition their performance equaled that of their white counterparts.

 

Experiment 2:

 

Provided a replication of this effect but also showed that African Americans both completed fewer test items and had less success in correctly answering items under stereotype threat.

 

 Experiment 3:

 

African-American and White undergraduates completed a task that was described either as assessing or not assessing intellectual ability. When the task supposedly measured ability, African-American participants performed more poorly. In addition, they showed heightened awareness of their racial identity (by completing word fragments related to their ethnicity), more doubts about their ability (by completing word fragments related to low ability), a greater likelihood to invoke a priori excuses for poor performance (i.e., self-handicapping), a tendency to avoid racial-stereotypic preferences, and a lower likelihood of reporting their race compared with students in the low-threat condition.

 

Experiment 4:

 

Sought to identify the conditions sufficient to activate stereotype threat by having undergraduates complete the non-threat conditions from Experiments 1 & 2. Unlike those experiments, however, students’ racial ethnic information was solicited from half of the students, right before they completed the test items. Results showed that performance was poorer only among African-Americans whose racial identity was made salient prior to testing.

 

These studies established the existence of stereotype threat and provided evidence that stereotypes suggesting poor performance, when made significant in a context involving the stereotypical ability, can disrupt performance, produce doubt about one's abilities, and cause an individual to dis-identify with one's ethnic group.   

 

Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies

 

Social Learning Theory

Creator: Albert Bandura (Conductor of the Bobo Doll Study in 1961)

Year Created: 1977

Concept: Social learning theory states that people learn from one another through observing others actions, imitating them, and modeling them.

Factors that affect human behaviors

-         Environmental Factors

Social Norms

Access in Community

Influence on Others (Ability to change own environment)

-         Cognitive Factors (Dispositional Factors)

Knowledge

Expectations

Values

-         Behavioral Factors (Situational Factors)

Skills

Practice

Self-efficacy (Belief that one is capable of doing something well)

Three types of Observational Models that Influence Learning

-          Live model that act out actions for imitations

-          Model explaining behaviors through speaking

-          Symbolic models within media or books that perform the action   

Modeling

-         Attention

One has to pay attention towards the situation. Any distractions might have a negative affect towards the learning process.

-          Retention

This process requires memorizing the behaviors and later on retracting them.

-         Motor Reproduction

The action is imitated through retraction of memory of the action. The more the action is reproduced, the more skillful one becomes with the action.

-         Motivation

This requires one to feel motivated to perform the action. Reinforcement (rewards) and punishment may help to increase ones motivation to perform the action.

 

‘Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models’ Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961)

Aim:

Learning can occur through mere observation of a model and that imitation can occur in the absence of that model;

o   Behaviors of the child would depend on the appearance of the model

Most aggressive behavior with an aggressive model

Less aggressive behavior with a non-aggressive model

Boys should act more aggressive than girl, especially to a boy model

Method

Subject ~ 72 children, 36 boys and 36 girls, aged 37-69 months (mean age of 52 months) were used

Design ~             independent variable – condition of models shown [aggressive, non-aggressive, and control condition]

                                Dependent variable – imitative behavior and aggression shown by the children

Procedure ~

1)      children were individually shown into a room containing toys

a.       the child played with potato prints and pictures in a corner for 10 minutes while the following condition happen

                                                                           i.      non-aggressive adult model played quiet and subdued manner

                                                                         ii.      aggressive adult model strike and hit the bobo doll aggressively

2)      all children were taken to a different experimental location and subjected to mild aggression arousal [stopping the child from playing attractive toy]

a.       an arousal was made to allow the children to show equal aggression

3)      children shown to another room  containing different type of toys

a.       one room with aggressive doll (bobo doll) and another with non-aggressive toy (Tea)

b.      children were observed by a one way mirror for 20 minutes

4)      observation made

a.       imitative behavior of aggressive model – physical aggression, verbal aggression, non-aggressive speech

b.      partial imitation behavior of aggressive model – aggression other object

c.       non-imitative physical and verbal aggression – physical aggression

d.      non-aggressive behavior – sitting still and quietly

Results

o   Children in the aggressive model condition show more imitation of the model’s physical and verbal aggression more than those of the non-aggressive condition and control condition

o   Children in aggressive model condition usually show more partial imitation and non-imitative physical and verbal aggression

o   Children in non-aggressive model condition show less sign of aggressive imitation

o   Children acts differently according to the sex model such that physical aggression happens to a male model and verbal aggression happen to a female model.

 

Eron and Huesmann 1986

 

Aim: Does watching violence on television affect the aggressiveness of children’s behavior?

 

Method: Correlational study

 

Procedure:

1) Travel around the world to study over 800 eight years old children

2) After 11 and 22 years later, restudy those children again

Finding:

1) The more hours children watch violence on television, the more tendency children will be more aggressive in the classroom and playground

2) Children become more aggressive between the age of 19 to 30 years old

3) Even though children at the age of eight were not aggressive, they could turn more aggressive than their peers who did not watch violent programs at the age around 19 years old if substantial amount of violence is watched

                               

Discuss the use of compliance techniques (for example, lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity)

Low-balling (Commitment: once people have agreed to something, either by their behavior of by a statement of belief, they are likely to comply with similar requests)

-          Low-balling is the act of making an initial request attractive enough to gain agreement, while not making the second request so outrageous that the other person would refuse.

-          Study: Cialdini (1974)

o   Research method: experiment

o   Procedure: In the first group experimenters asked a class of 1st year psychology

o   students to volunteer to become part of a study on cognition, and that they would meet at 7 a.m.

In the second group, the same favor was asked but this time, the time to meet was not told when the favor was asked but after the students agreed to take part.

o   Findings: In the first group, although the students seem enthusiastic about psychology, only 24 percent were willing to join the research. However, in the second group, 56 percent agreed to take part. And even though they were told of the meeting time, 95 percent of the students who promise to come showed up for the appointment.

o   Conclusion: In the first group, the students backed off on the request (only 24 percent agreed to join) because of the meeting time. However in the second group when the students already agreed to join the study, there is closure and commitment to the agreement. The students sense an illusion of irrevocability where they believe that a decision made cannot be reversed. Thus when they are informed of the time, they feel commited to their first agreement, and thus the majority appeared at the appointment.

o   Evaluation:

Methodological strength: Well controlled, it is high replicability (simple experiment), to an extent high in external reliability (it is being used in everyday life: advertisement, sales, business), the experiment is valid; it is high in ecological validity (appliances in business). Methodological weakness: Lack generalizability to other groups; the students are anticipated with the study as fellow psychology students, they cannot represent the majority.

Ethical considerations: Deceiving the participants of the true nature of the experiment.

Door-in-the-face-technique (reciprocity: people often feel they need to “return a favor” – reciprocity principle = a social norm that we should treat others the way they treat us)

-          Door-in-the-face-technique is when one feels that the other person has compromised what he/she wants and that this compromise should therefore be acknowledged with some behavior. (To request something that is surely to be turned down, then requesting something that is asked less of someone – the second request is likely to be accept because the person feels that the request has been lowered to accommodate them).

-          Study: Cialdini (1975)

o   Research method: experiment

o   Procedure: Cialdini and team posed as representatives of “Country Youth Counseling Program” stopped students on university campus and ask them if they are willing to chaperone a group of delinquents on a day trip to the zoo. Another time they stop the students and asked if they are willing to sign up to work for two hours/week as counselors for a minimum of two years, then following this request (depending on their reaction to the first request) they are asked the same request as in the first situation.

o   Findings: In the first situation when the request was chaperoning a group of delinquents on a day trip to a zoo, 83 % refused to volunteer. In the second situation, the first request (counselors for 2 years) was completely refused by all students, however with the follow up request (which is the same request as the first situation), about 50% agreed to serve as chaperones.

o   Conclusion: The first request (being counselors for 2 years) is very demanding, and is definitely turned down but because of this, the students agreed to the second request (asking for the chaperone) more (it being a smaller request than the first). Different from the first situation, the second situation makes the students feel that the second request has been lowered to accommodate them thus  they are more likely to accept.

o   Evaluation:

Methodological strength: Well controlled, easy to replicate, to an extent high in external reliability (it is being used in everyday life: helps in accomplishing a agreeing request), experiment is valid, high in ecological validity (appliance in business – starting with very high price then making sales).

Methodological weakness: Lack generalizability to other groups (student participants – young people may feel more vulnerable to a request because it is from an adult than requests between adults). Ethical considerations: deceiving participants of true nature of the experiment

 

Evaluation of the uses of Compliance techniques

-          Strength:

o   Supporting research (e.g. Cialdini)

o   Can be used to understand and predict behaviour (e.g. sect behavior, marketing, persuasion)

o   Applications (e.g. marketing)

-          Limitations:

o   Ethical issues of using these techniques

o   Individual differences in suggestibility for these techniques (dispositional factors)

o   Methodological/ethical problems of supporting studies (generalisability, use of deception)

 

Evaluate research on conformity to group norms

 

Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture, groupthink, risky shift, minority influence)

 

Group Think is a phenomenon that was discovered by Irving Janis (1982). He states that in group think, a group of people comes to a decision without allowing members to express doubts about it. Members shield themselves from any outside information that might undermine this decision. The group would believe in this decision, and due to disagreements both inside and outside the group are prevented, decisions made can sometimes be disastrous. Janis stated that groupthink occurs most often in highly cohesive groups that are able to seal themselves off from outside opinions, and have very strong dynamic leaders.

 An experiment done to support group think was done by Philip Tetlock and his colleagues (1992), they had conducted an analysis of records of 12 different political decisions. They concluded that it was possible to distinguish reliably between groups whose decisions reflected groupthink and groups whose decision making showed good judgment. The results provide support for the existence of the groupthink process; the results confirmed the important role of the leader in determining the quality of decision making. But the experiment had not supported the prediction of groupthink being caused by high group cohesiveness. There are advantages of the research the research is easily redo, to check the outcomes, and the research also supports the group think phenomenon. On the other hand there are disadvantages which are such as generalizability because the 12 different political decisions are only taken from the American, so if they are from other country the outcome could have differ. Another disadvantage is that there could also be researcher bias towards each political decision affecting the outcome or findings.

 

MINORITY INFLUENCE!

“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.”  Mark Twain

• Conformity does not account for the full range of human behavior.

• People sometimes resist the group to tell the truth as they see it (e.g. protests).

• New ideas always reflect a minority viewpoint, but the group may eventually come to accept them.

• Influence must flow from minority to majority (if not= no change)

• How to influence: they should have first conformed to the group, demonstrated their competence and then slowly shifted their view over time.

• Minorities have the most influence when they are consistent and maintain their viewpoint over time.

• Consistency triggers an attribution of confidence.

• Minority influence make people think divergently (open minded)

• Minority results in conversion (believing in private without acknowledging it in public).

• Minority Influence is a social influence where the majority gets influence by the minority.

• The majority changes their private opinion which this is called conversion.

• However, this will occur when the minority is influential, consistent, and flexible.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE: MINORITY INFLUENCE

MOSCOVICI

Aim:

To see whether a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test.

Procedures:

_ 172 participants in total were involved. All had good eyesight

_ Six participants at a time were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides

_ All the slides were blue, but of differing brightness

_ Tow of the six participants were accomplices of the experimenter

_ There were two conditions

- consistent: the two accomplices called the slides green on all the trials

- inconsistent: the two accomplices called the slides green 24 times,

and blue 12 times

Findings:

_ Participants in the consistent condition yielded and called the

slides green in 8.4% of the trials

_ 32% of participants in the consistent condition reported a green

slide at least once

_ Participants in the inconsistent condition yielded and called the

slides green in only 1.3% of the trials

Conclusions:

_ It is important that those in a minority behave consistently if they are

to influence a majority to change its viewpoint

_ Individual members of a minority must maintain a consistent

viewpoint and there needs to be agreement among the different members

of the minority group

_ Inconsistent minorities lack any real influence on majorities.

Their opinions are viewed as groundless

Criticisms:

_ The artificiality of the laboratory setting is unlike real-life situations where

minorities such as pressure groups exert their influence on the prevailing majority

opinion

_ Minorities must also avoid appearing rigidly inflexible

Define the terms "culture" and "cultural norms"

 

Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour (for example, individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Confucian dynamism, masculinity/femininity)

 

Culture: Culture is the set of ideas, behaviors, attitudes, and traditions that exist within large groups of people (usually of a common religion, family, or something similar). These ideas, behaviors, traditions, etc. are passed on from one generation to the next and are typically resistant to change over time. Cultures vary widely not only across the world, but even right next door. For example, if you live in America and then visit different areas of Europe, you may notice that people often get closer to each other physically in social settings - tables are often closer together at restaurants, people stand closer to each other when they speak, etc. These are examples of cultural differences.

Cultural norms: expected behaviors and attitudes in a cultural/ethnic group.

Individualism:

The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups.

Societies ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. 

Collectivism:

Societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Illustrate with examples and research

Example of Individualism:

For example, Germany can be considered as individualistic with a high score (89) on the scale of Hofstede compared to a country like Guatemala where they have strong collectivism (6 on the scale).

In Germany people stress on personal achievements and individual rights. Germans expect from each other to fulfill their own needs. Group work is important, but everybody has the right of his own opinion and is expected to reflect those. In an individual country like Germany people tend to have more loose relationships than countries where there is a collectivism where people have large extended families.

The United States can clearly been seen as individualistic (scoring a 91). The “American dream” is clearly a representation of this. This is the Americans’ hope for a better quality of life and a higher standard of living than their parents’. This belief is that anyone, regardless of their status can ‘pull up their boot straps’ and raise themselves from poverty.

Research Study: Markus and Kitayama (1991)

Aim: To investigate the characterization between US and Japanese culture 

Procedure: They compared amount of in-group bias among students before and after a university football match between two Japanese teams and between two American teams. 

Findings: The results revealed that both American teams showed in-group bias through evaluations of their universities. Japanese ratings on the other hand, reflected the universities status in the larger society.

Example of Collectivism:

China is one example of collectivism. People live in large families and depend on one another. They are also highly bonded to one another due to their cultures. 

Research Study: Yuki et. al. (2005)

Aim: To investigate the differences in two culture in trusting.

Procedure: Participants ask to trust someone in three scenarios, using three member of the groups (member of the in-group, member of out group, member of out-group that has a possible connection). The three scenarios were: asl to watch luggage at the airport, allow someone to borrow money in a restaurant, buying concert tickets from an individual online. 

Findings: Both US and Japanese trust their in-group members more, and trust their out group least. However, in the Japanese case they still trust those who are the out-groups but have some kind of connection to their in-group, while the US participant does not trust any of the out-group at all. This shows the US participants are more of an individualist since they keep to themselves, however the Japanese are more of a collectivist where they trust their society and value themselves as a whole, which leads to them trusting those who have some kind of connection to their ingroup. 

More examples related to Individualism and Collectivism:

Uncertainty avoidance:

Definition= society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth.

To what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. 

Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. 

Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth

Absolute truth=”there can only be one Truth and we have it”

Example: Germany  has a high uncertainty avoidance (65) compared to countries as Singapore (8) and neighboring country Denmark (23). 

Explanation of example

Germans are not too keen on uncertainty ( which means that they plan everything carefully and try to avoid the uncertainty).

 In Germany there is a society that relies on rules, laws and regulations. Germany wants to reduce its risks to the minimum and proceed with changes step by step

Power distance (under collectivist and individualist)

The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'. Countries that are collectivists have a higher number on the PDI than individualist countries. 

Example: Germany has a 35 on the cultural scale of Hofstede’s analysis. Compared to Arab countries where the power distance is very high (80) and Austria where it very low (11), Germany is somewhat in the middle. Germany does not have a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, but have a strong belief in equality for each citizen. Germans have the opportunity to rise in society.

On the other hand, the power distance in the United States scores a 40 on the cultural scale. The United States exhibits a more unequal distribution of wealth compared to German society. As the years go by it seems that the distance between the ‘have’ and ‘have-nots’ grows larger and larger.

Under Collectivist country

Thailand, which is a collectivist country would have a higher power distance score. Countries that are collectivists care about the equality and status thus grouping themselves into their own groups. Such as the rich are all grouped together and the poor are all grouped together.

Under an Individualistic country

Germany would be categorized as an individualistic country meaning that they believe everyone is equal. Therefore Germany would have a lower score on the PDI when compared to collectivist countries such as Thailand. 

Masculinity/Femininity

Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’.

Example: Germany has a masculine culture with a 66 on the scale of Hofstede (Netherlands 14). Masculine traits include assertiveness, materialism/material success, self-centeredness, power, strength, and individual achievements. The United States scored a 62 on Hofstede’s scale. So these two cultures share, in terms of masculinity, similar values.

Merritt and Helmreich (1996): Surveyed 9,000 male commercial airline pilots in

a study to replicate Hofstede’s study originally conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Merritt and Helmreich selected airlines that were owned, managed, and operated by members of the same national culture and pilots at those airlines whose nationality at birth and current nationality matched the nationality of the airline. Pilots from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and the Philippines had the highest power distance scores; pilots from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa had the lowest.

Merritt and Helmreich found that power distance had the most relevance for aviation, such as the use of automation (autopilot). Pilots with high power distance were enthusiastic about automation because automation is perceived as authoritative. Pilots with low power distance are least likely to accept automation because they dislike the lack of personal control.

Malcolm Gladwell (journalist) in the book “Outliers”: Explored two plane crashes—one Colombian (Avianca Flight 52) and another, South Korean (Korean Air Flight 801. He focuses on how well the pilots communicated with each other and with air traffic control. Poor communication in these examples, he argues, has to do with the cultures’ power distance index, since both Colombia and South Korea rank towards the top of the P.D.I. list, the subordinate members of their cockpit crews were unable or unwilling to speak up as assertively as they should have about safety concerns.

Using one or more examples, explain "emic" and "etic" concepts

•Etic: Etic approaches compare behaviour between cultures to find universal behaviour that can be applied to cultures (same in every culture)

 

•Emic: Emic approaches describe culture-specific behaviour from within the culture (differences in different cultures)

 

Illustrate emic and etic behaviour with examples and research:

Etic:

Paul Ekman (1982)

- Aim: to investigate that certain emotion is innate. (people from different culture share the same facial expression for an emotion)

- method: Observation

Sample: members of the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea (isolated culture)

Procedure: observing member of the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea on their facial expression on emotion and taking photographs of their facial expression. Ekman use the photos that portray the tribe member's facial comparing with people's facial expression around the world.

Finding: the members of the fore tribe and other people around the world have similar facial expression for the an emotion

Conclusion: Some facial expression on certain emotions are innate where every share the same facial expression to express their emotion

Emic:

• Cole & Scribner (1974)

Aim: To see the development of memory among tribal people in rural Liberia.

Method: Lab Experiment

Sample: Liberians participants (some of them attend school and some didn’t attend school)

Procedure: The nature of these cultural differences can be seen in the studies of the development of free-recall memory. In a free- recall task people are shown a large number, one at a time, and then asked to remember them. The participants are allowed to remember the words in any order they like. The words are divided into 4 main categories and all of the items that are listed are familiar items.

Finding: The participants remembered approximately ten items on the first trial, and managed to recall only two more items after 15 practice trials. The Liberian children who attended school learn the materials more rapidly.

Conclusion: The researchers found that Liberian children showed no regular increase in memory performance during middle childhood-unless they had attended school for several years in contrast to children in industrial societies.

**Cole and Scribner (1974) want to investigate memory strategies in different cultures. They compare the result of recalling the words between the US and rural Liberian people. The researchers found out that the Liberian children who didn’t attend school did not improve their memory skills after the age of 10. In contrast, the Liberians children who attended school can memorized and recall the list more rapidly just like the US children.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download