Sociocultural approach Flashcards
Social identity theory
- social identity theory argues that a person has not just one “personal self”, but rather several social selves that correspond to group membership
- according to the theory, we need to understand who we are and know our value in social contexts. this is why we categorise ourselves in terms of group membership
- so when an individual describes himself as a male, Australian, a student and a surfer, he refers to his social identities
- if the same person also said he played on the rugby team that won the last game, we will know that he can boost his self esteem through both his personal achievement but also through affiliation with this successful team
Tajfel rejected earlier psychological theories that claimed competition and conflict are necessary for intergroup rivalry to occur. instead, he wanted to find the minimal level necessary for some kind of group identification and subsequent prejudice and discrimination.
- sometimes our social selves can become more salient (obvious)- that is, we can become more aware of that facet of identity. Social Identity Theory predicts that when our social identities become salient, it will have an influence on our behaviour.
mental processes in Social Identity Theory
- the minimal groups paradigm formed the basis of Tajfel and Turners (1979) social identity theory which identifies three mental processes that are important for people to develop their social identity
1. social categorisation
the first is social categorisation: the tendency to divide items and people into groups in order to better understand them- when this is done the similarities and differences become more radicalised (exaggerated)
- this categorisation gives rise to in groups (us) and out groups (them). Tajfel argues that even when people are randomly assigned to a group they automatically think of that group as their in group (us) and others as an out group (them)
- Tajfel found that when people are randomly assigned to a group- they see themselves as being similar in attitude and behaviour, and this is apparently enough for a bond to be formed among group members
1. social identification
this has emotional significance for us as our self esteem relies on our group membership
- once divided into the in group and the out group, self esteem is maintained by social comparison- the benefits of belonging to the in group rather than the out group
- social comparison
Because our group identity is tied up with our self esteem we compare our group favourably with others and so it becomes the “in group” while others are the “out group” this can lead to negative stereotyping of the out group but this is not always the case, and therefore does not demonstrate a direct connection between social identity theory and prejudice and discrimination
Chen et al (SIT) (Cultural dimensions)
The aim of the study was to investigate the role of Confucian Work Dynamism (Long-term orientation) on an individual’s buying habits.
The sample was made up of 149 bi-cultural participants from a Singaporean university. The study was conducted online. The participants were randomly assigned to conditions.
First, the participants were primed in order to make either their Singaporean or their American identity more salient - that is, to make them more aware of that part of their identity. This was done by first showing them a collage of 12 photos that were emblematic of the culture. The images included famous buildings, brand names, the flag, and celebrities. After looking at the collage they were then asked to write down as many of the items as they could remember.
After completing the priming task, the participants were given a shopping scenario to buy a novel online. They were told the standard delivery cost was 2.99 Singaporean dollars. They were then told that it would take five business days to receive the delivery, but that they could pay extra to get the book in one day. Participants were asked how much they were willing to pay to receive the book in one day.
Finally, the participants were asked to list the first three politicians that came to mind.
People whose Western cultural values were made more salient through priming placed a higher value on immediate consumption than the people whose Eastern cultural values were made salient. It appears that Confucian Work Dynamism played a role in their online shopping behavior.
In both cases, the participants listed politicians that were relevant to the culture that they had been primed for. This indicates that the priming had remained throughout the study and should discount individual differences between the groups.
Evaluation:
The final test on politicians allowed the researchers to determine that the priming had, in fact, been successful and most likely affected the participants’ decisions.
The fact that the study took place in Singapore may be a confounding variable. In the original study, the influence on the American primed group was less significant than the Singaporean primed group.
The study was naturalistic; that is, the scenario was done online and this is how most of the students would purchase a book.
However, since the study was done online, this means that it is difficult to control variables - such as potential help from others or other distracters in the environment.
The study is highly standardized and could be replicated in order to establish thereliabilityof the findings.
Chen et al (Link to SIT)
Link to social identity theory:
- more salient to one culture meant that they would self-identify to that culture more than the other, and therefore categorise themselves with that culture, therefore adopt the behaviours of that culture.
Chen et al (link to cultural dimensions)
the priming to make them more salient of either their American or Singaporean culture meant that they internalised that specific culture, the study shows how long term and short term orientation varies from different cultures (individualistic vs collectivistic)
Tajfel (SIT)
Aim: To investigate if intergroup discrimination would occur based on group categorization, even without prior prejudice or competition.
Procedure:
A sample of 48 British schoolboys (ages 14–15) rated abstract paintings by Klee and Kandinsky without knowing the artists. They were then randomly assigned to groups supposedly based on their painting preferences. The boys allocated points to other participants using two systems:
1. Points totaled 15, so increasing one boy’s points reduced the other’s.
2. A system where maximizing one group’s points reduced the points of the other group.
Findings:
Boys favored their in-group by awarding more points, even at the cost of fewer total points for their group. They prioritized maximizing the difference between in-group and out-group scores over maximizing their own group’s total points.
Conclusion:
The study demonstrated in-group favoritism and intergroup discrimination based on arbitrary groupings, showing that a “minimal group” is sufficient for such behavior. This challenged the idea that competition is necessary for prejudice to occur.
Evaluation:
- High control minimized confounding variables and allowed replication for reliability.
- Low ecological validity due to the artificial task.
- Boys may have shown demand characteristics or perceived the task as competitive.
- Sampling bias limits generalizability beyond British schoolboys.
Tajfel et al link to SIT
This study directly supports Social Identity Theory (SIT), which posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into groups, and that being part of an in-group naturally fosters in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Tajfel’s experiment demonstrated that even when the groups were arbitrary and meaningless, participants still showed clear signs of in-group loyalty and out-group bias. This shows that minimal group distinctions are sufficient to establish a sense of social identity and lead to intergroup discrimination.
SIT holistic evaluation
Strengths of Social Identity Theory
Explains Ingroup/Outgroup Behavior:
SIT provides a robust framework for understanding how people categorize themselves and others into social groups, leading to ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination.
It explains phenomena such as prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup conflict without requiring deep interpersonal interactions.
Broad Applicability:
SIT applies across diverse contexts, including cultural, organizational, and societal settings, making it a versatile theory.
It helps explain real-world issues such as nationalism, racism, and workplace dynamics.
Evidence Support:
Research, such as Tajfel’s minimal group experiments, demonstrates how merely categorizing individuals into arbitrary groups leads to ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias, even in the absence of competition or interaction.
Further evidence comes from studies on real-life intergroup conflicts and group-based identity dynamics.
Psychological Depth:
The theory incorporates cognitive processes like categorization, identification, and comparison, offering a nuanced explanation of how group identities form and influence behavior.
Development of Self-Concept:
SIT highlights the role of social identities in shaping an individual’s self-esteem and sense of belonging, connecting personal identity with group identity.
Limitations of Social Identity Theory
Overemphasis on Group Identity:
SIT may overemphasize the role of social identity, neglecting other factors that influence behavior, such as personal relationships, personality traits, or contextual factors.
Limited Explanation of Intergroup Conflict:
While SIT explains ingroup favoritism, it does not fully account for intense intergroup conflicts, which often require additional theories like Realistic Conflict Theory (competition over resources) or cultural and historical contexts.
Simplistic View of Group Formation:
The theory assumes that categorization alone is sufficient to produce bias, but it may oversimplify the complexity of group dynamics, especially in real-life, multi-layered social structures.
Cultural Bias:
SIT was developed in Western contexts, which may not fully capture how social identity operates in collectivist cultures where group harmony and interdependence are more emphasized.
Lack of Predictive Power:
The theory explains group behavior post hoc but struggles to predict the intensity or specific outcomes of ingroup and outgroup interactions.
Social cognitive theory
Social cognitive theory was developed mainly by Albert Bandura and suggests that behaviour is learned through observation and from the environment through the process of modelling and reinforcement- in other words, people can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior.
The basic idea this theory provides is that we do not need to experience everything personally in order to learn. We can learn through observation. e.g. if I see that someone jumps up in pain after sitting on a bench in a park on a sunny day, I know that the bench is hot, and I wont sit on it. I don’t need to experience the pain myself to avoid sitting on it.
Social cognitive theory was developed by Bandura (1986) from his earlier theories of social learning (1961-77) and self-efficacy (1977)
Self efficacy is the expectation of personal success in a task, based on the view that one is in control of one’s actions and abilities.
Both of these are incorporated into SCT, which is a comprehensive theory of how humans act as agents and through their thoughts, beliefs and actions affect and are affected by their own environments and social systems. This process is called reciprocal determinism.
Modelling involves learning through the observation of other people, which may lead to imitation if the behaviour is to be imitated leads to desirable consequences.
Sometimes the model is trying to have a direct affect on the learner.
Unlike some learning that we do, we do not need positive reinforcement- that is, a reward- to continue the behaviour. The fact that the model was rewarded or punished for a behaviour, is enough for us. This is what Bandura calls vicarious reinforcement.
Bandura recognised that there are certain conditions necessary for social learning to occur:
- Attention: in order to learn, observers must attend to the modelled behaviour.
- Retention: in order to reproduce an observed behaviour, observers must be able to remember features of behaviour
- Motivation: in order to reproduce an observed behaviour, observers must want to reproduce it and expect a certain outcome from the behaviour
- Potential: in order to reproduce an observed behaviour, observers must physically and/or mentally be able to carry out the behaviour
- Consistency: if the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situation- for example, always being brave- then the observer will be more likely to imitate the model than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation
- Identification with the model: there os a tendency to imitate models who are like us (in terms of age and gender)
- Liking the model: warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models
The role of self-efficacy
- finally, social cognitive theory argues that learning is most likely to occur if the observer has high self-efficacy
- self-efficacy is one’s belief in one’s ability to succeed accomplishing a task. Bandura and other researchers have found individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can master challenging problems and they can recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments
- therefore, self efficacy plays a central role in whether a learner will imitate the behaviour of a model. Those who have low levels of self-efficacy will fear failure and are less likely to attempt imitating the behaviour of the model
4 factors that result in self-efficacy:
- performance accomplishments (how successful we have been in the past)
- vicarious experience (watching other people persist in challenging tasks and experience success)
- verbal persuasion (other peoples encouragement)
- physiological arousal
Reciprocal determinism
- Bandura saw behaviour, internal personal factors and environmental influences as all interacting to affect one another
- For example, our preferences for doing certain sports or activities are based on our thoughts and feelings about how we will perform and the environment
Factors affecting social cognitive theory
- the model stands out in contrast to other models
- the models behaviour must be consistent
- the model is liked and respected by the observer
- the observer perceives a similarity between him/herself and the model
- the models behaviour is reinforced
Bandura, Ross and Ross (SCT)
Aim:
To investigate whether children imitate aggressive behavior observed in adult models and whether this varies by the model’s gender or the child’s gender.
Procedure:
- 72 children (36 boys, 36 girls) aged 37-69 months participated.
- Children were pre-tested for baseline aggression using 5-point scales, and groups were matched for similar aggression levels.
- Three conditions: aggressive model, non-aggressive model, and control (no model).
- Children observed same-sex or opposite-sex adult models either behaving aggressively (hitting and verbally abusing a Bobo doll) or non-aggressively (playing quietly).
- After mild frustration (denial of attractive toys), children entered a room with aggressive and non-aggressive toys, where their behavior was observed for 20 minutes through a one-way mirror.
Findings:
- Children exposed to aggressive models exhibited more aggressive acts than those in non-aggressive or control conditions.
- Boys were more aggressive than girls overall.
- Boys imitated male models more, while girls showed more physical aggression with male models but more verbal aggression with female models.
Conclusion:
Aggression can be learned through observation and imitation, influenced by the gender of both the model and the child.
Evaluation:
The findings of Bandura’s study align closely with Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes that behavior is learned through observation and imitation of others, particularly role models. This theory extends traditional behaviorist ideas by incorporating cognitive processes, such as attention, memory, and motivation, to explain how individuals acquire new behaviors. In this study, children observed and later replicated the aggressive actions of adult models, demonstrating the importance of observational learning. Additionally, the variation in imitation based on the model’s gender supports the idea that individuals are selective in whom they imitate, influenced by perceived similarity or relevance to themselves. This highlights how social and cognitive factors interact to shape behavior.
Bandura et al link to SCT
The findings of Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment support Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), showing that children learn behaviors through observation and imitation. The study demonstrates observational learning, with children mimicking aggressive actions modeled by adults. The preference for same-sex models aligns with SCT’s idea that individuals choose role models based on similarity. Cognitive factors, such as attention and retention, are key in how children replicated specific aggressive acts. Additionally, the experiment highlights SCT’s concept of reciprocal determinism, where the environment, personal factors, and behavior interact to influence learning.
Joy Kimball and Zabrach SCT
Aim:
To investigate the impact of the introduction of television on children’s aggressive behavior in a natural environment.
Procedure:
- The study was conducted in three towns in British Columbia, Canada:
- Notel: No television in 1973; introduced a single Canadian channel by 1975.
- Unitel and Multitel: These towns already had television but received the new channel in 1975.
- Data collection methods:
- Observations of physical and verbal aggression on playgrounds, ensuring inter-rater reliability.
- Ratings of aggression by teachers and peers.
- Surveys on children’s TV viewing habits and preferences.
- The sample included 120 children, with informed consent obtained from parents.
Findings:
- Aggression increased significantly in Notel after television was introduced (1973–1975).
- The aggression levels in Unitel and Multitel showed no significant changes during the same period.
- Boys were generally more physically aggressive than girls.
- Children’s favorite shows showed no clear link between the content viewed and levels of aggression.
- Researchers attributed the increase in aggression in Notel to heightened arousal due to the novelty of television exposure.
Conclusion:
The introduction of television correlated with increased aggressive behavior in children, particularly in a previously TV-free environment. The findings highlight the potential social and psychological effects of media exposure.
Evaluation:
-
Strengths:
- Natural experiment: High ecological validity, as the study took place in a real-world setting.
- Longitudinal design: Allowed researchers to track changes over time.
- Triangulation of methods: Used observations, teacher/peer ratings, and surveys to gather comprehensive data.
- Inter-rater reliability: Increased the objectivity of behavioral observations.
-
Limitations:
- Lack of control over extraneous variables: Other factors (e.g., socioeconomic changes, peer influences) could have influenced aggression.
- Cultural bias: Conducted in a specific region of Canada, limiting generalizability.
- Ethical concerns: Observing aggression in children might have raised issues of informed consent and psychological harm.
- Correlation, not causation: Cannot definitively establish that television caused the increase in aggression.
Joy Kimball and Zabrach link to SCT
Social Cognitive Theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, emphasizes the role of observational learning, imitation, and modeling in behavior. According to SCT:
- Children learn behaviors by observing role models (e.g., characters on television).
- Aggression could increase due to imitation of aggressive behaviors displayed on TV.
- Novelty of television in Notel may have heightened arousal, increasing susceptibility to aggressive modeling.
- The findings align with Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, where children imitated aggressive behaviors observed in a model.
SCT Holistic evaluation
Strengths of Social Cognitive Theory
Comprehensive Approach:
SCT integrates cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors, offering a multifaceted understanding of human behavior.
It emphasizes the importance of reciprocal determinism, where personal factors, behaviors, and environmental influences interact dynamically.
Observational Learning:
The theory explains how individuals learn through observation, imitation, and modeling, which is supported by Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments. This is particularly useful in understanding how behaviors are transmitted socially.
Self-Efficacy:
SCT highlights the critical role of self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to succeed) in shaping motivation and performance, providing a strong link between cognition and behavior.
This concept has practical applications in therapy, education, and health promotion.
Applications Across Contexts:
SCT is widely applicable in areas such as education, health interventions, and organizational behavior. For example, it underpins behavior change models in public health campaigns (e.g., promoting exercise or smoking cessation).
Focus on Agency:
By emphasizing personal agency, SCT acknowledges that individuals are not passive recipients of environmental influences but active participants in shaping their behavior.
Cultural Sensitivity:
SCT considers the role of social and environmental context, making it adaptable to different cultural and situational settings.
Limitations of Social Cognitive Theory
Overemphasis on Cognition:
Critics argue that SCT places too much emphasis on cognitive processes, potentially underestimating the role of emotion and unconscious motivations in behavior.
Difficulty in Measuring Constructs:
Core concepts like reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy are abstract and can be challenging to measure quantitatively, limiting empirical validation.
Limited Explanation of Biological Factors:
SCT does not adequately account for innate or biological influences on behavior, such as genetics or neurobiological processes.
Oversimplification of Complex Behaviors:
The theory may oversimplify how behaviors develop by focusing primarily on observational learning and self-efficacy, neglecting deeper psychological or contextual factors.
Reactive vs. Proactive:
While SCT recognizes individual agency, it may lean towards describing individuals as reactive to their environment rather than fully proactive in creating change.
Focus on Learning over Long-Term Behavior:
SCT explains the acquisition of behaviors well but is less effective in addressing the persistence of behavior over the long term or explaining why some learned behaviors are not enacted.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes are fixed beliefs about a particular group of people that are also applied to any one member of that group. The use of stereotypes is one way in which we categorise and simplify our social world. However, they can also be negative and lead to prejudice against individuals and groups.
- often acquired indirectly from other people and social norms and not from personal experience.
- they are schemas that help us understand the world around us
- stereotypes can be positive or negative
- tend to be very general in nature and individuals acknowledge that they cannot be applied to all members of the group. The stereotype serves as heuristic- the person is like this until proven otherwise
- prone to conformation bias- that is, we tend to see examples- whether on the street, in print or on television- that confirm our stereotypes, and we tend to ignore evidence that contradicts them
Prejudice
- when we make a judgement about individuals with very little information about them except for group membership
- prejudice is an attitude- which means that cognition (schema) is combined with emotion- in this case, often liking or disliking the individual
- prejudice is usually negative
Discrimination
- Discrimination is a behaviour- based on stereotyping and prejudice
Conformation bias and stereotyping
Conformation bias is when we tend to notice evidence that supports what we already believe. So, if I believe that a certain group of people are criminals, I will notice news reports of this group committing crimes and this will strengthen my belief. I will also discount positive or contrary evidence about the group. Conformation bias makes stereotypes resistant to change.
Cognitive misers and social identity theory
Fiske (2004) developed the ‘cognitive miser’ theory that stereotyping allows us to shortcut our thinking processes.
This relates to Tajfel et al.’s (1971) minimal paradigms explanation and Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory explanation of the processes of social categorisation.
Social categorisation is a way of organising information about people in order to identify them quickly. When we do so, we exaggerate the differences between the groups and the similarities of things (and people) in the same group, and this can lead to stereotying.
Perdue et al. (1990) argue that social categorisation is responsible for the formation of stereotypes, through language. They argue that it is the language we use when speaking about in-groups and out-groups that may lead to prejudice.
Stereotypes can also be formed as a means of taking on the in-groups social representation of the out-group.
Illusory correlation
- a simple error of association
- what is meant by this is that there is an incorrect conclusion that 2 events that occur at the same time are related
- unusual events are distinctive, so people notice them more
- the increased attention leads to stronger/ more effective coding
- this strengthens the perception that the events are associated
Limitations:
- Evidence that impressions disappears suggest that stereotypes are more linked to memory
- Cognitive overload negates illusory correlation as it prevents association
- Isolated from Biological and Cognitive approaches
Hamilton and Guifford
Aim
- To investigate whether the extent to which illusory correlations lead to stereotype formation
- ‘Distinctiveness based illusory correlations happen when a relationship is believed to exist between two variables due to focusing too much on information that stands out’
Procedure
- ONLY 40 American undergraduate students (20 male and 20 female)
- Ethnocentric study: Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic
- Participants were asked to read 39 statements about two groups of people (Group A and group B)
- There were twice as many people in group A (26) as group B (13)
- The statement about each person was either positive or negative
- Participants were told that group B was smaller than group A before the study; to prime the participants to make assumptions about the minority group (seeing them as out group)
- Each group had the same proportion of positive and negative statements
- Participants were then asked to rate the groups on 20 traits e.g. popular or intelligent
Results and Conclusion
- Group A was ranked higher for positive traits and lower for negative traits compared to group B
- Hamilton and Guilford argued that this was because the minority group was by nature smaller in number, their negative behaviours appeared more distinct and therefore seemed more representative of the group
- This demonstrates why negative stereotypes may be formed
evaluation
- sampling bias: Ethnocentric: western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic , as it is done on american undergraduates. Therefore this study is not generalisable
Hamilton and guifford link to stereotypes
This study illustrates the formation of stereotypes through the process of illusory correlation, where people perceive a stronger association between two variables than actually exists. In this case, participants were primed to view Group B as the minority and, despite both groups having the same proportion of positive and negative traits, they attributed more negative traits to Group B. This occurred because the negative behaviors in the smaller group stood out as more distinctive, leading participants to form an exaggerated belief about the group’s negative characteristics. This demonstrates how minority groups can become targets of negative stereotyping due to the disproportionate focus on distinct or negative information, even in the absence of actual behavioral differences.
Rogers and Frantz
Aim:
Investigate if European settlers in South Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) adopted more conservative racial attitudes over time.
Link conservatism with maintaining racial segregation.
Procedure:
Sample: 500 white Europeans, aged 20+, with varying lengths of residence in Rhodesia.
Survey: 66 questions on racial laws/customs rated on a 4-point Likert scale.
Measured attitudes toward retaining/discontinuing segregation.
Demographic factors (income, education, political preferences) were analyzed.
Findings:
Mean score: 2.45, showing general support for segregation.
Newer residents (<5 years) were least conservative.
Longer residence strongly correlated with increased conservatism (p < 0.001).
No significant correlation with age or income; education and political preferences mattered.
Conclusion:
Settlers gradually adopted in-group norms and stereotypes about the African population.
Social identity influenced by prevailing attitudes over time.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
Large, representative sample improves generalizability within Rhodesia.
Highlights the role of in-group conformity in adopting stereotypes.
Limitations:
Findings may not apply to other cultural contexts.
Rogers and frantz link to stereotypes
This study highlights how stereotypes can form through social identity and conformity to group norms. As newcomers adopt the attitudes of their in-group, they integrate pre-existing stereotypes into their identity. This aligns with the idea that stereotypes are learned through socialization, where individuals absorb the beliefs and behaviors of their group to maintain acceptance and cohesion.
The effects of stereotypes
There are many effects of stereotypes, however, the main 3 include:
- stereotype threat
- the negative consequences of positive stereotypes
- memory distortion
what is stereotype threat?
Stereotype threat is the fear that you will confirm a negative stereotype about a group that you belong to. When people are faced with a stereotype threat, they often get nervous and perform worse, thus confirming the stereotype.
- stereotype threat occurs when one is in a situation where there is a threat of being judged or treated stereotypically, or a fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm the stereotype
Steele and Aronson (Stereotype threat)
A- The aim of the study was to see how stereotype threat affects test performance in African Americans. Steele & Aronson defined stereotype threat asbeing at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group.
P- The sample was made up of 114 male and female, black and white undergraduates from Stanford University. There were two independent variables in the study: the race of the participant and the test descriptions. The participants were given a standardized test of verbal ability - similar to the SAT - and were told one of two things: 1. It is a test to diagnose your intellectual ability; 2. it is a test of your problem-solving skills; In the first condition, the focus was on “verbal ability”; in the second condition, it was on “problem-solving.” Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions; however, they made sure that there were equal numbers of participants in each condition.
F- African Americans did poorly when they believed that the test was a test of their ability, but did just as well as the white Americans when they believed that it was a test of their problem-solving skills. In other words, African American participants performed less well than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition, but in the non-threat condition, their performance equalled that of their white counterparts.
Evaluation:
- The sample was made up of Stanford University students, so itmay not be representativeand thus difficult to generalise the findings.
- The study made use of an independent sample design. Verbal scores from participants’ SATs were collected prior to the study in order to make sure that they were all within the norm of verbal performance. In this way, participant variability was minimized. However, a matched-pairs design may have been a better approach.
- Although there is a difference between the two average scores, it does not necessarily mean that the participants experienced stereotype threat. Their salience about their racial identity and their levels of stress during the exam were not measured in this first variation of the experiment. Later variations of the experiment showed, however, that this was most probably the case
