Socio Culutral Level of Analysis (SCLOA) Flashcards
Tajifel (1971) | ingroups and outgroups favortism
Aim
To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary (minimal group) would display ingroupfavoritismand intergroup discrimination.
Procedures
The participants were 64 school boys (age 14-15) from a state school in the UK.
They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. They all knew each other well before the experiment.
Boys were randomly allocated to groups based on their supposed artistic preferences for two painters. Then they had to award money to the other boys.
Results
A large majority of the boys gave more money to the members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of the other categories (outgroups). The boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups.
The results of the both experiments indicated that the boys adoptedstrategyof ingroupfavoritism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory.
Evaluation
The experiment contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that the social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self-concept.
Tajfel demonstrated that a “minimal group” is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. The experiment has been criticized for artificiality and demand characteristics. The boys have interpreted that the task as sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did.
Sherif (1954) | Robber’s Cave
Aim
To investigate relations between groups. To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group and to see whether two groups who compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
Procedures
Participants - 22 aged 11 years old boys, who did not know each other before the study.
The boys were split into two random groups of 11 and matched as far as possible on background, IQ, sporting ability etc.
The boys were not informed they were part of a study and the aim of the camp. They were also not initially informed of the presence of the other group.
There were 3 stages to the study:
Stage 1 group formation - for 1 week the groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms and identities boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc. The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stencilled them onto shirts and flags
Stage 2 intergroup relations - the boys were told about one another. A tournament of a series of competitions between the groups, and promised trophies, medals, and camping knives to the winners was set up to see if this would lead to hostility of the out group. The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, in order to analyze whether the comments were derogatory. A bean counting competition was included, where boys had to estimate how many each found – this was to see whether they overestimated the boys in their in group and underestimate the boys in the out group.
Stage 3 The integration phase – to achieve harmony between the groups the boys were introduced to tasks that brought the two groups together.
These tasks included fixing a water tank when water supply was threatened, pulling a broken down truck out of mud and pooling their money to afford to watch a film they all wanted to watch.
Data was collected using observation of the boys friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
Results
Stage 1 – The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognized leader. They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
Stage 2 – Towards the end of stage 1 the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups. At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers. The Eagles burned the Rattler’s flag. Then the next day, the Rattler’s ransacked The Eagle’s cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.
The boys attitudes were negative to out group members which was shown by the way they talked about each other.
Stage 3 – During initial contact hostility between the groups remained. The joint problem solving problems began to reduce their hostility towards each other – when they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film.
These tasks helped reduce friction and by the end of this stage although friendship choices still favored the in-groups, there was increased friendship between the groups. The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys.
Johnson et al (1964) – A demonstration of SSB
Aim
To investigate the effect of pupils’ learning on teachers’ SSB
Procedures
Participants were psychology students
They taught two children how to multiply numbers by 10 and 20
Teaching was done via a one-way intercom
Taught in two phases:
how to multiple by 10
how to multiple by 20
After each phase, worksheets were made available to participants to assess children’s learningprogress
Worksheets were made in a way that
pupil A gave all correct answers on both sheets
pupil B
did poorly on both sheets (participant failed in teaching)
did poorly on the first sheet and improved on the second (participant succeeded in teaching)
Results
1st try: Participantsattributed pupil B’s failure to the pupil’s lack of ability.
2nd try: Participants attributed pupil B’s improved performance to their abilities as a teacher
Evaluation
When attributing pupils’ learning progress, teachers demonstrated SSB to enhance and protect the image of their own ability.
Ross et al. (1977) | Jeopardy FAE
Description
To see if student participants would make the FAE even when they knew all the actors were playing a role
Aim
Participants (P”s) randomly assigned the three roles:
Game show host - asked to design their own questions.
Contestant - tried to answer questions.
Audience member - watched the game show.
After the game show, audience members were asked to rank the intelligence of the hosts and contestants.
Procedures
P”s consistently ranked the host as the most intelligent, even though they knew they were randomly assigned this role and that they had written the questions
Results
They failed to attribute the host’s behavior to situational factors of the role they had been randomly assigned
instead attributed his performance to dispositional factors – intelligence
Lau and Russell (1980) | Sports
Found that professionalathletes and coaches attribute 80% of their wins to internal factors, while losses to external factors
Freedman & Fraser (1966) | Foot in the door.
Aim
To investigate foot in the door.
Procedures
Questioned homeowners if they could put up “big, ugly” sign in their neighbor hood.
- 17% agreed
- Different homeowners were asked if they could put up a small sign, nearly all agreed.
- Two weeks later these same people were asked if they could put up the “big, ugly” sign
- Now 76% agreed.
Burger and Cornelius (2003) | Low Balling
Aim
To investigate low balling techniques.
Procedures
Students were contacted by phone by a female caller and asked whether they would be prepared to donate five dollars to a scholarship fund for underprivileged students.
The experiment was conducted under three experimental conditions.
The lowball condition: students were told that those who contributed would receive a coupon for a free smoothie at a local juice bar.
Students who agreed were then informed that the investigator realized she had run out coupons.
The students were asked if they would still be willing to contribute – 77.6% agreed.
The interrupt condition: request was delivered the same way. However, was interrupted before the participant could give answer, stating that coupon had ran out. 16% agreed.
The control condition: participants were simply asked to donate $5 without any mention of coupons. 42% agreed.
Smith and Bond (1996) | Meta-analysis of Asch. (Culture)
Description
Whether someone is from an individualist or collectivist society will conform on different levels.
Studies have shown that Asian cultures engage in more conforming behaviours than Western cultures (e.g. America)
Americans see conformity as a negative trait.
Results
Found higher conformity levels in collectivist cultures rather than in individualist cultures.
People from individualistic cultures base their identity from individual self whereas collective cultures seeks to be accepted and bonded by the others.
Collectivist: more likely to conform to the cultural values, and puts higher value to the relationship.
Solomon Asch (1951) | Paradigm (example) of conformity (Unanimity)
Description
Is the approach that the likelihood of conformity increases (to a certain extent) when everyone agrees with something.
Aim
To investigate the existence of conformity.
Procedures
Participants were placed into a room with 6 confederates and one examiner without participant’s knowledge.
Participant was placed in the near last seat, which made them answer near the end.
The group was presented with cards where they were asked to select the card B that was closest to card A in terms of length.
Confederates were instructed to answer few questions correctly, and some questions incorrectly.
Results
75% conformed at least once to the wrong answer.
32% conformed to more than half.
24% did not conform at all.
Evaluation
Low ecological validity / lab conditions / controlled environment removed confounding variables
Meaningless stimuli
Gender bias (only male)
Culture bias (American study) / cannot be generalised to all population
Ethical considerations - deception was used (but all subjects debriefed)
Moscovici and Lage (1976) | Shades of Blue (Minority)
Description
Is the approach that a minority, no matter how small, can influence a bigger group given that they are consistent enough.
Aim
To investigate whether a minority group can influence a bigger group through conformity.
Procedures
4 subjects were placed in a room with 2 confederates and an experimenter. The participants were unaware of the existence of confederates.
Subjects were asked to judge whether different shades of blue / green were blue or green.
2 confederates were asked to give wrong answer consistently.
Results
The minority of 2 confederates were able to influence 32% of the participants to give out wrong answer.
Participants continued to give wrong answers even though confederates has left.
Evaluation
Offered an alternative view to the conformity.
Elaborated upon Asch’s Paradigm.
Same weaknesses / strengths of Asch.
