sociocultural approach Flashcards
social identity theory
- who, when
- steps
- salience
Tajfel 1979
“our s.i comes from our membership of social groups”
3 psychological mechanisms
1. social categorization, in groups, conforms
2. social comparison
3. positive distinctiveness
salience: one’s group membership s made salient, it has an effect on behavior.
- social identity
person’s sense of who they are based on group membership
important source of pride self esteem
- personal identity
who we are based on unique characteristics
Drury -london
Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion.
EV.
- Aim: to investigate if making someone’s social identity in an emergency situation would lead to an increased helping behavior. Method: lab, VR of a fire. IV: whether the Ps were given a shared identity or not. DV: helping behaviour. R: those given a shared identity were more likely to help others at the expense of their own safety. C: supports the SIT because Ps acted in accordance with the SI that was made salient at the time by the researchers-
Evaluation: high internal validity, high mundane realism. low ecological validity, replicable, avoids undue stress + deception.
Lemyre & Smith
Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion.
EV.
1985 aim: investigate the influence of discrimination on self-esteem. Method: lab. IV: whether ps had the opportunity to discriminate against the out-groups or not. DV: self-esteem. P: Ps were categorized into groups. 1 group got to discriminate against the out group and one group didn’t. Self esteem was measured afterwards.
R: The Ps who had the opportunity to discriminate displayed higher self-esteem. C: when we have an opportunity to discriminate against an out group, our self esteem increases, like SIT predicted.
EV: cause and effect can be established. Another study found the opposite; therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
EV of SIT
T: testable under lab conditions and naturalistic conditions but not highly. (low ecological validity)
A: can be applied in crowd control during emergencies. applied in courtrooms.
E: there is biological support.
SCT (social cognitive theory), cognitive factors. self-efficacy
Albert Bandura. 60’s.
Claims that humans learn behaviour through observational learning, people can learn by watching models and imitating their behaviour.
- learned through vicarious reinforcement.
Cognitive factors:
- attention, retention, motivation, potential, consistency of model, identification with model, liking the model.
SCT claims that learning occurs more if the observer had high self-efficacy. (one’s own belief on one’s ability to succeed).
Bandura Bobo doll study. Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion. Conditions + stages.
60’s. Aim: to see if children who are passive witnesses to an aggressive display by and adult will imitate the aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity.
M: lab. IV: model aggressive or not, gender of model and gender of child. DV: aggression of child.
P:36 boys and girls, 3-5 old. One model. 3 conditions:
1. control group. 2. group exposed to an aggressive model. 3. group exposed to a passive model.
Stage 1: Child taken to a room with toys, one corner for play era, opposite model with chairs, table, blocks, mallet and Bobo. Ex left the room. in non-a: model played calmly with the toys. in a-c: model was aggressive to the doll in a scripted way, physical and verbal. 10 minutes they went to room 2.
Stage 2: child was subjected to mild aggression arousal, played with toys but then told that they were reserved for other children.
Stage 3: child was taken to a room with aggressive and non-a toys. was kept in there for 20 and their behaviour was observed by judges through a one way mirror.
R:
Children who saw a-model were more A. Boys were more aggressive. Boys showed more aggression if the model was male. Girls showed more physical A if the model was male and more verbal if the model was female.
Link: This demonstrated SCT because the children appeared to have learned the behaviour by watching the model.
Evaluation of Bbo doll study
Low ecological validity: lab. Only a brief encounter with model. Children were intentionally frustrated. Does not predict if child is repeatedly exposed to A parents/tv. (only bobo dolls?)
Was not completely standardized in the first ex, different levels of aggression.
Ethics: frightening for the children to observe such violent behaviour. It could be permanent.
Charlton (tv)
Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion.
EV.
2002
aim: to investigate if the introduction of violent Tv would have an effect on aggression in children in St Helena.
M: natural experiment, dependent groups design.
IV: exposure to A tv or not. Did not manipulate the IV. Observed & collected data of the children from teachers and family. Data triangulation increases validity.
DV: aggression levels of the children before and after the intro of TV-
Ps: children 3-8. P: cameras were set up on a playground. A levels were measured before the intro of TV. Returned after the intro of TV to reassess on the same measures a year later. R: there was NO increase in aggressive or anti-social behaviour. Same case 5 years later.
C: watching violent tv does not seem to affect aggression.
(based on the results of this theory).
EV: natural experiment with no manipulation of IV, cannot draw a conclusion abt the causation.
High ecological validity
Does not question SCT.
Evaluation of SCT
T: testable under lab conditions, not highly under naturalistic settings which leads to low ecological validity.
E: experimental research shows evidence that observing behaviour causes that behaviour (Bandura et al). Low ecological validity, not generalized. Naturalistic conditions causation cannot be determined, bidirectional ambiguity, show correlation.
A: heuristic validity: applied in several ways. Used to explain various human behaviours, anorexia due to aggression. Role of social media on behaviour.
Stereotypes
perception of…
LTM…
generalizations…
A stereotype is defined as a social perception of an individual in terms of group membership or physical attributes. a social schema stored in LTM. a generalization made about a group. energy saving device. can be either positive or negative
prejudice
an attitude that includes an emotion
discrimination
a behaviour based on stereotyping and prejudice.
Steele and Aronson Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion.
EV.
1995
aim: yo see how stereotype threat affects test performance in african americans on a test of verbal ability. ps: 76 male and female b & w undergraduates at stanford university.
M: lab.
IV: the race of the Ps and the test descirption.
DV: performance on a test. P: the Ps were given a standardized test of verbal ability, and were told 1 of 2 things (iv). 1. test to diagnose your intellectual ability (the stereotype threat condition) blacks having poor intellectual ability activated.
2. it is a test of your problem solving, described as simply a lab problem, there is no stereotype threat.
R: a-a did poorly when they believed that it was a test of their intellectual ability. Did just as well on the other task.
EV: high internal validity
cause and effect can be inferred (how to know if stereotype threat is present?) They made their race salien in the 4th exp.
- biased, stanford students, to what extent can it be generalized.