Socio-Cultural Test Flashcards
Lee et al 1977
Lee et al 1977
Aim: see if students would make the fundamental attribution error even when they knew all the actors were playing a role Method: participants were randomly assigned to either: a game show host / contestant on the game show / members of the audience. The game show host had to create their own questions, and their audience watched the game show, and they had to rate the intelligence of the people that took part Results: audience ranked the host has most intelligent, even when they knew that each person was randomly assigned, and they wrote their own questions
The audience failed to attribute the role to the person’s situation, which is to be able to ask the question. Instead they attributed to their performance to dispositional factor - intelligence
Evaluation:
Sample of university students: cannot be a representative of greater population
Cannot generalize
The audience failed to attribute the role to the person's situation, which is to be able to ask the question. Instead they attributed to their performance to dispositional factor - intelligence
Tajfel et al 1971:
Aim: whether people that are placed randomly in a group would create a bond
Method: assign a bunch of boys based on their preference for the art of Kandinsky or Klee, and they had to rate their members and then their out-groups
Results: out-group was rated as less likeable
Evaluation: group identity alone may not be responsible for intergroup conflict - in the absence of competition, social comparison does not necessarily produce a negative outcome
Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behavior
Attribution: how people interpret and explain casual relationships in the social world
Since humans need to understand how and why things happen People have different ways of attributing causes to events
Actor-observer effect: People tend to make attribution about behavior depending on whether they are performing it themselves or observing others
Situational factors: people discuss own behavior, they attribute it with external factors
Dispositional factors: people discuss own behavior, they attribute it with internal factors
E.g. a girl has date with a guy, and the guy is late
Dispositional factor: he's insensitive, forgetful Situational factor: train delay, accident Lee et al ( 1977)
Discuss two errors in attributions
Attribution theory: people are more likely to explain another person’s actions by pointing to dispositional factors rather than the situation
Fundamental attribution error
Fundamental attribution error: people overestimate the role of dispositional factors in an individual’s behavior and underestimate the situational factors
People gather information by observations; which may lead to illogical conclusions
Self-serving bias
Self-serving bias: people take credit for their successes - attributing them to dispositional factors, and dissociate themselves from their failures, attributing them to situational factors
Evaluate social identity theory
Social identity theory: assumption that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem based on personal identity or with various social identities
By Henri Tajfel
People can boost self esteem though personal achievement / affiliation with successful groups
Shows the importance of social belonging
SIT based on cognitive process of social categorization
Explains social phenomena such as in-group favoritism, stereotyping, and conformity to in-group norms May produce competitive intergroup behavior
People who belong to a group (even when assigned) would automatically think of that group as their “in-group”, and others as “out-group”
When people are casually assigned to a group, they have similar attitudes and behavior, and a bond is often formed amongst the members
People exhibit in-group favoritism, and a pattern of discrimination with the out-group
Individual’s self esteem is maintained by social comparison: benefits of belonging to the in-group
Outcome of comparison is important, as it influence self esteem Cialdini et al 1976: Tajfel et al 1971
Cialdini et al 1976:
Aim: find out whether people really favor their own in groups more
Method: see the response of fans after a successful football match
Result: fans were likely to be seen wearing a college badge and clothing than after defeats
Evaluation: our need for positive self-concept will result in a bias in these intergroup comparisons, therefore people are more positive to what your group represents
Tajfel et al 1971
Aim: whether people that are placed randomly in a group would create a bond
Method: assign a bunch of boys based on their preference for the art of Kandinsky or Klee, and they had to rate their members and then their out-groups
Results: out-group was rated as less likeable
Evaluation: group identity alone may not be responsible for intergroup conflict - in the absence of competition, social comparison does not necessarily produce a negative outcome
Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies
Assumption that humans learn behavior through observational learning
People can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior
Sometimes the model is trying to have a direct effect on the learner
He proposed that social learning requires these factors:
Attention - paying attention to model Retention - remember the behavior observed Moto reproduction - replicate the action Motivation - learner must want to demonstrate what they learnt Bandura et al 1961
Bandura et al 1961
Bandura et al 1961
Aim: see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult, and to see if children were more likely to imitate same sex models
Method: children aged 3-6 divided in groups (72 in total, 36 boys 36 girls)
One group: exposed to adult model who showed aggression by bashing an inflatable bobo doll
Some watched same gender model, the other watched another gender model
Second: observed non-aggressive adult who assembled toys for 10 minutes
Third : control group, didn’t see any model
After watching the models, the children had to play in a room with the toys. After 1a while, they had to leave as the were told that the toys were for other people.
Then they were placed in a room with the bobo doll
Result:
Children who observed aggressive models - more aggressive physically and verbally
Conclusion:
Social learning was demonstrated in this study - children were affected by it
Girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression
Boys more likely to imitate physical aggression
Evaluation:
Low ecological validity - lab study
Brief encounter with the model - children are intentionally frustrated after they begin to play with a toy
Aggression against bobo doll isn't clear whether its towards aggression in general, or just to this situation
Aggression modeled by adult was not completely standardized - children observing different types of aggression
Aggression was based`
Discuss the use of compliance techniques
Six factors that influence the likelihood that people will comply with a request
Authority: advertisers using famous people to brand their product so that people associate the brand with famous people
If Beckham uses this shaver, so will I
Commitment: once people agree, they are likely to comply to similar requests
Liking: people comply requests from people they like
Reciprocity: people feeling the need to return the favor
Scarcity: opportunities that are more valuable once they are less readily available
Social Proof: people think a behavior is correct if they see other people performing Door-in-the-face Technique-Reciprocity can occur when one feels that another person has already compromised on what he or she wanted, and that this compromise should therefore be acknowledged with some behavior (Cialdini et al 1975) -Foot in the door technique Requests persuades target to agree to a small request, then follows it up with a second and larger (actual target) request. (Dickerson) Low Balling Technique(Cialdini et al 1974) Two step technique in which the persuader secures agreement with request but then reveals a hidden cost
Cialdini et al 1975
Aim: whether people agree to requests more first or second time
Method: stopping university students on a campus, asking if they’re willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a trip to the zoo.
Another time, they stopped students as asked if they were willing to work for 2 hours per week as a counselor, for a minimum of two years, and then follow up with a question asking if they’re willing to take the juveniles to the zoo.
Results: first group: 83% rejected the volunteer. Second group first request: no one agreed to help. Second group follow up request: 50% students agreed to help
Conclusion: you can see this in daily life; e.g. when a salesperson lowers a price of a product
Once a compromise is made, the customer is more likely to make a purchase
Dickerson et al 1992:
Aim: see if people comply more when they first commit to something smaller
Method: asking students in California to firstly sign a poster that helps conserve water. Then they were asked to take a survey that was designed to make them think about their water wastage, and their shower times were then monitored
Results: students who had signed the poster had shorter average times
Evaluation: students may have signed because they already have a commitment to the cause, which is to conserve water
Cialdini et al 1974
Aim:
Method:
Group 1: asking a class of first year psych students to volunteer on a cognition where people meet at 7am.
Group 2: asked to volunteer on same favor - without telling them the time
After that question, they were told that they had to meet at 7
Results:
Group 1: 24% willing to support the research
Group 2: 56% agreed to take part
After being told the time, no one backed out
95% of the students who had promised to turn up did turn up
Asch Paradigm:
Aim: to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous (in full agreement)
Method: participant entered a room where there were six people and the researcher.
Confederates: the men dressed like businesses men, in suits and ties, they are part of the study, and the participant doesn’t know that
The participants joins the confederates, and they are told that this was a psychological test on visual judgment
Select the line from the second card that matched the length on the first card
18 trials in total - some very noticeable differences, some not too noticeable
The confederates were told to answer the majority of the answers as incorrect
Results: around 75% of the participants agreed with the confederates incorrect responses at least once during the trials
Mean of 32% of participants agreed with incorrect responses in half or more of the trials
24% did not conform to any of the incorrect responses given.
Conclusion: during the debrief, all of them had some degree of self-doubt
Those who conformed said they knew they were giving incorrect answers, but they did not want to ruin the experiments results and they didn’t want to appear to be against the group
This could be due to "the need to belong"
Evaluation: question of artificiality and ecological validity
This experiment doesn't accurately predict how people will react in real-life situations
Demand characteristics; participants acting in a way that they feel is required by the features of the experiment
Only one culture looked ; the asch paradigm is may no longer be valid today
Ethical considerations: deceived participants
Made to feel anxious about their performance
Discuss factors influencing conformity
-Group size
1 confederate 3% conform
2 confederates 14% conform
3 confederates 32% conform
Larger groups: No increase in conformity ; in some cases, they decreased the level of conformity
-Unanimity:
Conformity was most likely when all confederates agree
-Confidence:
When individuals feel more competent to make decisions in a field of expertise
Therefore people with higher rankings (medical, engineers), their conformity rates were almost nil
-Self esteem:
Participants with high self esteem were less likely to conform to incorrect responses
