🌍 Sociocultural Approach Flashcards
Social identity & ingroup favoritism
Tajfel et al. (1971)
Aim: To investigate the effects of social categorization on intergroup behavior, specifically the emergence of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
Procedure:
* Stage 1: Participants estimated the number of dots on a screen and were categorized as “overestimators” or “underestimators” (arbitrarily assigned).
* Stage 2: Participants allocated points (convertible to money) using a matrix, deciding rewards for anonymous members of in-groups and out-groups.
Results: Participants consistently favored in-group members, even at a personal cost or reduced group reward.
The mean choice for in-group members in different-group matrices was 9.2, compared to the fairness point of 7.5.
Conclusion: In-group favoritism and out-group discrimination can arise from trivial group distinctions, supporting the claims of SIT.
🌎 Social identity theory
Bobo doll experiment
Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)
Aim: To investigate whether observing an adult model behaving aggressively toward a Bobo doll would increase aggressive behaviors in children.
Procedure:
* Stage 1: Children were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
1. Aggressive model group: The model acted aggressively toward the Bobo doll, using physical and verbal aggression.
2. Non-aggressive model group: The model played calmly with toys.
3. Control group: No model was shown.
* Stage 2: Each child was taken to a new room and exposed to a frustrating situation (denied access to attractive toys).
* Stage 3: In the final room, children had access to toys, including a smaller Bobo doll. Their behavior was observed through a one-way mirror for 20 minutes.
Results:
* Children exposed to the aggressive model exhibited significantly more aggressive behaviors than other groups.
* Same-sex models led to higher imitation rates.
* Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression, while girls imitated verbal aggression.
Conclusion: The study supports observational learning, showing that children can acquire new behaviors by watching others.
👀 Social cognitive theory
Stereotype threat & academic performance
Steele & Aronson (1995)
Aim: To investigate the effects of stereotype threat on academic performance.
Procedure: Participants completed a verbal test under two conditions:
* One emphasizing the test’s diagnostic nature (activating stereotype threat).
* One emphasizing problem-solving.
Results: Black participants performed worse in the diagnostic condition but matched white participants in the non-diagnostic condition.
Conclusion: Stereotype threat leads to performance anxiety, confirming stereotypes.
🏷️ Stereotypes & behavior
Social Categorization
Johnson, Schaller, and Mullen (2000)
Aim: To examine the interaction between social categorization and illusory correlation in stereotype formation.
Procedure: Participants read sentences about group behaviors, with some participants assigned to groups (social categorization) before or after stimulus presentation.
Results: When participants were categorized into the minority group before reading the sentences, illusory correlation was eliminated. Categorization after the stimulus had no effect.
Conclusion: Social categorization influences how stereotypes form, particularly by enhancing or reducing illusory correlation.
🏷️ Stereotypes & behavior
Enculturation of Samoan children
Odden & Rochat (2004)
Aim: To explore the role of observational learning in enculturation within non-Western societies, specifically among Samoan children.
Procedure: A longitudinal naturalistic observation study involving 28 children (aged 4–12) in a rural Samoan village. Researchers also conducted semi-structured interviews with adults and collected parental belief questionnaires.
Results: Samoan children acquired skills like fishing and household chores by watching elders, without direct instruction.
Conclusion: In Samoan culture, observational learning is a central mechanism of enculturation.
🌎 Enculturation
Conformity in individualist vs. collectivist cultures
Berry & Katz (1967)
Aim: To investigate whether individualism and collectivism influence conformity.
Procedure: Used the Asch paradigm, where participants selected a line matching a target line after hearing group responses (majority were confederates providing wrong answers).
Results: Temne participants conformed significantly more than the Inuit participants.
Conclusion: Cultural dimensions like individualism and collectivism shape behaviors such as conformity.
🌎 Cultural dimensions
Acculturation
Shah et al. (2015)
Aim: To investigate the relationship between acculturation and obesity among South Asian migrant workers in the UAE.
Procedure: 1,375 South Asian male migrants were randomly sampled, and their BMI was assessed.
Results: Longer residence correlated with higher BMI. Migrants showed higher obesity rates than locals and their non-migrant counterparts.
Conclusion: Acculturation to the UAE’s dietary patterns contributed to increased obesity rates.
🌎 Acculturation
Hofstede’s Dimensions
Hofstede’s Multinational Survey (1973)
Aim: To identify cultural dimensions underlying cross-national differences in values, attitudes, and behaviors.
Procedure: Conducted a survey of values among 117,000 IBM employees across 70 countries (1967–1973). Data was analyzed using factor analysis to identify universal dimensions.
Results: Initially identified four dimensions (individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity/femininity), later expanded to include long-term orientation and indulgence/restraint.
Conclusion: These dimensions provide a robust framework for comparing cultural tendencies and their influence on behavior.
🌎 Cultural dimensions
🌎Globalization & behavior
💬Cultural influences on cognition
Cultural influences on cognition
Chiu (1972)
Aim: To compare cognitive styles between Chinese and American students.
Procedure: Participants grouped three objects (e.g., cow, chicken, grass) based on perceived relationships.
Results: Chinese students preferred contextual categorization (e.g., grouping “cow” and “grass” because cows eat grass). American students showed analytic categorization (e.g., grouping “cow” and “chicken” because they are animals).
Conclusion: Cultural differences in socialization influence cognitive processing. Chinese students demonstrated holistic thinking, emphasizing relationships, while American students focused on categories and components.
🌍 Sociocultural Approach (Culture & cognition)
🧠 Cultural Dimensions (Cognition & thinking styles)
Cultural influences on behavior
Cohen et al. (1996)
Aim: To investigate how cultural norms of honor influence responses to insults.
Procedure: Participants were bumped into by a confederate in a hallway and called an offensive name. Later, participants walked towards a larger confederate in a narrow hallway, testing their proximity before “chickening out.”
Results: Southern participants reacted with more hostility, coming closer to the confederate (0.94m) compared to Northerners (2.74m).
Conclusion: Southern males were more likely to exhibit aggression, consistent with honor culture norms.
🌎 Culture and behavior
🏙️ Social Identity Theory
Individualism, well-being, & social relationships
Ogihara & Uchida (2014)
Aim: To investigate how increasing individualism affects subjective well-being in Japanese students.
Procedure: Students completed surveys measuring levels of individualism, number of close friends, happiness, and life satisfaction.
Results: A negative correlation between individualism and subjective well-being in Japanese students. Number of close friends mediated the relationship, with fewer friendships linked to reduced happiness. No such correlation was found in American students.
Conclusion: Individualistic values may reduce well-being in collectivist societies without concurrent strategies to mitigate isolation.
🌎 Globalization & behavior
