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.
stereotype threat:
being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s own group. Threatens performance because it turns on spotlight anxiety which causes emotional distress and pressure that may influence performance. REASONS/CAUSES OF POOR PERFORMANCE DUE TO STEREOTYPE THREAT: Stereotype threat turns on spotlight anxiety, which causes emotional distress and pressure that may undermine performance. Students under the stereotype threat often underperform and this can naturally limit their educational prospects
Spencer
spotlight anxiety limits working memory capacity. easy test, difficult test.
1999
aim: to investigate whether women who are strong at math consider it important for their identity, and if they would underperform on a test compared to men.
method: lav, IV: difficulty of math test, easy and difficult.
IV2: gender
DV: performance, test scores.
P: easy or difficult math test was given to the students. performed on computer. R: women underperformed in comparison to men on the difficult test but did just as well on the easy one. C: women who are good at math see it as part of their self-identity and may underperform on difficult tests bc of the negative stereotype that women’s inferior math ability. Pressure that creates anxiety, leads to underperformance, spotlight anxiety limits working memory capacity.
evaluation of stereotype threat theory
+ empirical support for the theory
- low reliability
- low population validity
theory is unbiased
CULTURE
dynamic
rules
ensure survival
is dynamic, system of rules involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms
includes explicit and implicit rules
is established and passed on by groups to ensure survival by regulating behaviour.
Surface & deep culture
Surface: visible characteristics and manifestations of a culture such as food, clothing, technology.
Deep: beliefs, norms, attitudes and values.
culture is learned through
socialization, learned from members of groups by intimating them.
cultural dimension, pattern of… Gert…
is a pattern of values and behaviours in a culture
cultures around the world differs
Geert Hofstede
2 cultural dimensions
- individualism vs collectivism
2. masculinity vs femininity
Hofstede Method, aim, P & Ps & (IV,DV) Results, conclusion.
EV.
1980
aim: to measure cultural differences in values and norms.
m: questionnaires 126 questions about relationships, attitudes towards authorities, need for rules, attitudes about work and leisure time. Did a CONTENT ANALYSIS. P: 100,000 employees in 50 countries, IBM. R: noticed trends and came up with several cultural dimensions. Suggested that cultures should be ranked on these dimensions based on their values. C were ranked in terms of how strongly they embraced the values of individualism.
EV: work environment.
researcher bias, confirms their own biases. Correlation, not possible to argue that culture causes these behaviours.
culture is dynamic. Claims results have stayed consistent. sample large and diverse. included only workers at one company.
