SCLoA Quick Reference Flashcards
SCLoA Principle 1
Human beings are social animals with a basic need to belong.
SCLoA Principle 2
Culture influences human behaviour.
SCLoA Principle 3
Humans have a social self which reflects their group memberships.
Studies that support SCLoA Principle 1
Howarth (2002)
Studies that support SCLoA Principle 2
Berry (1967)
Studies that support SCLoA Principle 3
Tajfel (1970)
Howarth (2002)
Study on Brixton adolescent girls. They had a positive image (social identity) of “being from Brixton” which contrasted with others.
Berry (1967)
Modification of Asch: Contrasting Temne (Africa) and Inuit (Canada). Temne wanted conformity, Inuit needed independence.
Tajfel (1970)
Boys divided into two groups based on arbitrary tasks (Estimation of numbers/painting preference). Boys awarded their ingroup - SIT.
Observations - Why
To observe people behave in natural habitats
Observations - Examples
Bandura (1963), Charlton (2002)
Observations - Evaluation
No control over extraneous variables, cannot make cause-effect statements. Lack of informed consent and privacy.
Informed consent example
Sherif (1936) Participants were not informed.
Deception example
Asch (1951) Participants were deceive about the purpose.
Protection of participants example
Asch (1951) Participants were exposed to embarrassing procedures.
Attribution theory
(Heider 1958) Based on the assumption that people try to explain behaviour (naive scientists)
Studies supporting attribution theory
Simmel (1944), Evans-Pritchard (1976)
Simmel (1944)
Moving geometric figures - participants thought the figures had intentions to move.
Evans-Pritchard (1976)
Azande people of Africa - collapsed granary doorway. Caused by termites but was “attributed” to witchcraft/fate.
Two errors in attributions
Fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), Self serving bias
Studies supporting FAE
Ross et al. (1977), Suedfeld (2003), Norenzayan et al. (2002)
Strengths of FAE
- Promoted understanding of errors of attribution
2. Supported research
Limitations of FAE
- Culturally biased with too much focus on individualism
2. Research lacks ecological validity/generalization
Ross et al. (1977)
Quiz show, questioners made up questions, participants and questions demonstrated FAE by attributed the questioner’s ability to answer the question to dispositional factors.
Suedfeld (2003)
Holocaust survivors attributed the factors of survivor to situational factors (91%), compared with only 51% of the control group. Dispositional factors: 34% to 71%.
Norenzayan et al. (2002)
Korean and American participants. Only received information about individuals - dispositional. Situation factors introduced - Korean used this more than Americans. Indicates universal features of FAE.
Fundamental attribution error
Overestimate dispositional factors and underestimate environmental factors when attributing behaviour.
Self-serving bias
Take credit for successes and attribute failures to situational factors. Protecting self-esteem.
Studies supporting SSB
Lau and Russel (1980), Posey and Smith (2003), Kashima and Trinadis (1986), Bong Leung and Wang (1982)
Strengths of the SSB
Explains why people explain their failures as being caused by situational factors
Limitations of the SSB
Culturally biased - does not explain modesty bias.
Lau and Russel (1980)
American football coaches and players demonstrate SSB
Posey and Smith (2003)
Children were asked to do math questions with a partner. Worked with friends - less likely to demonstrate SSB.
Kashima and Trinadis (1986)
American and Japanese students were shown slide and asked to memorize details. Japanese students demonstrated the modesty bias.
Bong, Leung, and Wan (1982)
Chinese societies want to maintain harmonious personal relationships - self-effacing attributions = better liked.
Social identity theory
Self-categorization theory (Turner 1991) - group membership (value and emotional significance)
Studies supporting SIT
Tajfel (1970), Howarth (2002)
Strengths of SIT
- Intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination
- Explains mechanisms involved in establishing positive distinctiveness in ingroup
- Applied to understand behaviours such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping
Limitations of SIT
- Artificiality in research
- Cannot explain how ingroup favouritism results in violent behaviour
- Reductionist - environmental factors?
Stereotypes
Based on personal experiences and cultural and social factors - categorization.
Stereotype formation
Grain of truth hypothesis (Campbell), Social categorization (Tajfel and Turner), Illusory Correlation (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976)
The Princeton Trilogy
Katz and Braley (1933), Gilber (1951), Karlins et al. (1969)
Studies supporting formation of stereotypes
The Princeton Trilogy, Devine (1989), Lipmann (1922), Posner and Snyder (1975)
Effects of stereotypes on behaviour
Confirmation bias, stereotype threat
Confirmation bias
People pay attention to stereotype consistent information
Stereotype threat
Negative stereotypes may be internalized by stereotyped groups (Shih et al.)
Studies supporting the effect of stereotypes on behaviour
Darley and Gross (1983), Stelle and Aronson (1995), Shih et al.
Katz and Braley (1933)
100 male students from Princeton U. to choose five traits that describe ethnic groups. Considerable agreements in stereotypes were shown. In group bias demonstrated. Stereotypes learned through gatekeepers.
Gilber (1951)
Replicated Princeton study. Less uniformity, however attitude towards Japanese was extremely negative due to press. Irritation on stereotypes was expressed.
Karlins et al. (1969)
Repliced Princeton study. More positive stereotypes.
Darley and Gross (1983)
Video of girl playin in a rich/poor environment. Audience stereotyped their future based on schemas.
Stelle and Aronson (1995)
African Americans vs European Americans - Americans scored lower on verbal ability, but equally on “how certain problems are solved”. Stereotype threat.
Social Learning Theory
Bandura (1977) - people learn behaviour, reactions, norms though direct experiences and observation of models.
Factors of SLT
Attention, retention, reproduction, motivation.
Studies supporting SLT
Bandura and Ross (1961), Charlton et a. (2002)
Bandura and Ross (1961)
Bobo doll study - see if children would imitate adults models (difference in sexes). Children behaved accordingly, and imitated same sex models.
Charlton et al. (2002)
Observation of children after introduction of TV. No increase in aggressive behaviour - motivation not given.
The norm of reciprocity
We treat others the way they treat us (Cialdini, 1993)
Compliance techniques
Foot in the door technique, low-balling, door-in-the-face
Foor in the door technique
Small request > actual target (Sherman, 1980)
Low-balling
Secures agreement > hidden cost (Cialdini, 1978)
Door-in-the-face
Large request > target request (Cialdini, 1975)
Sherman (1980)
Asked if participants would collect for cancer society, then 3 days later asked for help from the organization. 31% agreed compared to 4% in control
Cialdini (1978)
Psychology study at 7 am - people refused (control). Psychology study and then 7 am > 95% turn up rate.
Cialdini (1975)
Escort young criminals and then peer counsellor to young criminals - people said no. Peer counsellors and then escort children, 50% agreed.
