sociocultural approach: individual and the group Flashcards
social identity theory: what is it based on and what does it argue
Based on the idea that a person has both an individual/personal self and several social selves.
Social identity theory argues that one’s self esteem comes from their membership in social groups.
We need to understand who we are and know our values in a social context, so we categorise ourselves in terms of group membership.
what did Tajfel and Turner argue
there are 3 stages on social identity theory:
social categorisation
social identification
social comparison
social categorisation
process by which we identify which groups we belong to and which we do not
(identify the in-group and the out-group)
social identification
process of adopting and conforming to the group’s norms and values, as well as linking self esteem to group identity
social comparison
process of comparing to the in-group to the out-group: favoriting in-group & being biased towards the out-group
positive distinctiveness
though the process of social comparison, we try to make our in-group as different to the out-group as we can
salience
we are more aware of that particular social identity
tajfel et al, aim
to investigate of intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups
tajfel et al, sample + method
48 boys, 14-15 years old
randomly assign boy to one group
The matrix:
Maximising difference
Maximising profit
Largest reward to in-group
tajfel et al, results
prioritised maximising the difference, even at cost of total profit for the ingroup, positive distinctiveness
tajfel et al, conclusion
in-group favouritism and out-group bias exists even if the groups are arbitrary (minimal groups paradigm)
tajfel et al, link
Therefore, by maximising the difference between groups, the boys in Tajfel’s study showed out-group bias (social comparison) as they were trying to bring the other group down because their personal identity and self esteem got tied to their group identity (social identification)
tajfel et al, strengths
The experiment had a high level of control.
Confounding variables were minimised.
The procedure can be replicated to establish reliability.
PPS randomly assigned to groups, reducing the chance of individual differences and increasing validity
tajfel et al, weaknesses
The task the participants were asked to was highly artificial; the study lacks ecological validity.
Artificial, we tend to know people in the in-group and out-group, and the task of allocating arbitrary points is unrealistic.
This may not reflect actual behaviour in a naturalistic setting.
The boys may have shown demand characteristics, trying to please the researcher.
The boys may have interpreted the task as competitive and tried to ‘win.”
Sampling bias - the study was carried out on British schoolboys.
It is difficult to generalise the results to women, adults, or other cultures.
Levine study AMRC
Aim: to see social identity theory in a more natural and realistic setting
Manchester united fans
Liverpool fans
Red shirt, control group
See a jogger fall, different t-shirt
Most only helped jogger in the same team’s t-shirt
Showed social comparison
→ in-group was favorited
→ out-group was discriminated against
levine strengths
Natural setting, higher ecological validity, can expect PPS to act in the same way as real life
levine weaknesses
Difficult to tell exactly why PPS helped the jogger- could be in-group favouritism or a personality trait (mental process that we infer based on physical behaviour)
Salience- maybe not that big of a fan
social identity theory critical thinking
Contributes to explanations of other areas of social psychology → stereotypes and conformity
Real life applications → why people help in emergencies, explain how juries make decisions, why we may/ may not conform to a group
Hard to measure level of social identification
Hard to measure salience of identity
We have many social identities → low predictive power → it may be the interaction of different identities that plays the strongest role in predicting behaviours
Practical applications to football fan violence, discrimination
We have more than one social identity, with the salience of each changing depending on context, hard to measure
social cognitive theory
behaviour is learnt through modelling, observation and imitation
role models
people we look up to
identification
person aligns themselves with role model & wants to be like them
self efficacy
believing that you have the capacity to execute a specific action
according to social cognitive theory we learn in 3 ways
observation
modelling
imitation
observation
watching the model do something
modelling
role model demonstrates behaviour
imitation
copying the model’s behaviour
conditions necessary for social learning
attention
retention
motivation
potential
attention
attend to the behaviour the model is modelling
retention
remember the features of the behaviour/action
motivation
wanting to repeat the behaviour the model is performing and expect an outcome
potential
the observer has the physical and/or mental capability to repeat the observed behaviour
direct reinforcement
our behaviour gets rewarded, so we are more likely to repeat that behaviour
vicarious reinforcement
we watch someone’s behaviour get rewarded so we are more likely to copy the behaviour
factors affecting learning potential
model: stands out, consistent behaviour, liked+respected, member of in-group, reinforced behaviour
bandura, aim
to see if children would imitate aggressive behaviour
bandura, sample
72 children, aged 3-5
bandura, method
give children group based on aggression before study: aggressive model, non aggressive model, no model
Steps:
1- modelling- watch adult either perform aggressive or calm behaviour to a bobo doll
2- aggression arousal- put children in a room full of new toys, tell them the toys are not for them but for other children, this gives them all the same baseline aggression
3- test for delayed imitation- put children in a room with aggressive and non-aggressive toys (including the bobo doll) and watch their behaviour
bandura, results
children exposed to aggressive behaviour are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour, control group imitated the least, imitated same gender more (social comparison)
bandura, conclusion
Aggression can be learnt via the mechanisms of SCT
Imitation of aggression can occur after only a single exposure to the aggressive act
Aggression may be observed in one setting and imitated in a different setting
Children appear to have learned the behaviour by observing the models
Bandura, linking
Therefore, when the children were exposed to modelling of aggressive behaviour and observed this, they demonstrated learning through the imitation of aggressive behaviour.
The children were more likely to imitate if they were observing a same-sex role model as they were more likely to identify with the model and their motivation would be increased.
bandura, strengths
The study is an experiment using a matched pairs design. This means that the researchers controlled for the child’s level of aggression in the different groups.
Controlled observational study with a standardised procedure → replicable and could be repeated to test for reliability
bandura, weaknesses
The sample size was very small. In addition, these were all children of people working at Stanford University. It is difficult to generalise from such a sample.
The study shows that aggression may be learned, but it does not study whether aggression is innate. It is not truly a counter-argument to the theory that aggression has biological origins.
The study is ethically problematic - exposing children to adult violence against the Bobo. The study is cross-sectional, looking only at aggression exhibited as a result of seeing the adult hit the Bobo. It did not monitor long-term effects on the children. It can be argued that the children experienced undue stress and there was a potential for long-term psychological effects on their behaviour.
The situation is highly controlled and it is not normal for children to be left alone with strangers in this way. The study lacks ecological validity.
Only shows short-term effects of observed aggression, hard to see if there are also long-term effects
joy et al, aim + type of study
to see the impact of TV on children’s aggressive behaviour
Longitudinal and natural study
joy et al, method
Conducted in 3 small towns in British Columbia and Canada
Notel community, TV introduced in 1973, 1975 new channel
Other 2, already had TV
120 children
Observed physically and verbally abusive behaviour of children on the playground
Teacher and peer ratings of aggressive behaviour
joy et al, results
Aggressive behaviour of children in Notel significantly increased 1973-1975
Other 2 towns, no significant change in aggressive behaviour
Peer and teacher ratings supported findings
Heightened arousal (from TV) results in greater likelihood of aggression
joy et al, conclusion
Exposure to TV significantly increased both physical and verbal aggression in both genders
Watching violence causes violence
joy et al, strengths
More ethical as aggression is not induced, the addition of TV is something that would have happened anyway
joy et al, weaknesses
Difficult to tell what exactly caused the increase in aggression- maybe it’s the increased age of the children or a change in the strictness of parent
Lack of control over how much TV each child watches
Potential research bias through participant observation (could eliminate by observing children at recess through playground cameras rather than interaction with them)
social cognitive theory critical thinking
Practical, high real-world applicability e.g. video games, film age ratings, media
→ cautionary tale in the media ‘16 and pregnant
Improvement on earlier theories → assumed learning only occurs with rewards and punishment
Low predictive power → hard to predict when an observed behaviour will/ will not be imitated
Only explains individual behaviour to an extent → possibly limited to only explaining behaviour in individualistic cultures → self-efficacy is more important in individualistic cultures → personal self-efficacy is essential for success regardless if achieved individually or in a group
Collectivist → at least some most show self-efficacy → variable is hard to measure → unclear to what extent SCT is on a global scale
Used in enculturation
Difficult to test the concepts of attention, retention, motivation and potential
A strength of the social cognitive theory is that it takes into account the social and cultural context in which enculturation occurs. It predicts that children acquire internal standards for behaviour through reward and punishment - either by personal or vicarious experience. A number of empirical studies support the notion of modelling.
stereotype
a generalisation about a group of people
generalisation
applying one trait to a group of people / applying the results from a study to a wider target group of people (assuming the sample is representative)
schema
a mental organisation of information, containing everything we know about a certain thing
reciprocal determinism
model of human behaviour, states that there are 3 factors influencing how humans behave:
behavioural, environmental, personal
behavioural factors
actions, efforts, choices, statements
environmental factors
actions of others, social context
personal factors
attitudes, values, self-efficacy, personality
categorisation
process by grouping people together based on certain characteristics
prejudice
an attitude
make a judgement about individuals with little information about them except for group membership
discrimination
behaviour of negative actions towards one or a group of people, can be due to group membership
confirmation bias
tendency to search for / favour information that confirms/supports personal beliefs or values
positive distinctiveness
wanting to make the in-group and out-group as different as possible, due to social comparison, we give negative traits to the out-group (leading to stereotypes to a whole group based on one person)
illusory correlations
a bias where we perceive a relationship/association that doesn’t exist (may be due to confirmation bias)
where do stereotypes come from
social identity theory
illusory correlations
social identity theory
→through social categorisation, social identification and social comparison
→the bias towards the outgroup may generalise to each member of the group, forming a stereotype about people in the outgroup
→positive distinctiveness due to social comparison
→Schaller (1991): shows that out-group bias and social comparison can lead to negative stereotypes being created against out-group members, even if they are not true
illusory correlations
→a bias where we perceive a relationship that doesn’t exist
→Hamilton + Gifford (1976): people associate more negative traits with smaller groups
They believe that each individual is more representative of the small group, so their traits can apply to the whole group
Makes people see a relationship that doesn’t exist => illusory correlation, leads to a stereotype about a group
Schaller 1991, aim
determine how group membership may lead to stereotyping
schaller 1991, method
141 US university students
Randomly assign participants to a group
Give each participant statements about members of both groups (desirable and undesirable behaviours)
schaller 1991, results
When asked about their group, they recalled stereotyping statements favouring their group (in-group bias)
Better recalled negative stereotypes of out-group
Schaller 1991, conclusion
This social categorisation into in-group and out-group resulted in the in-group favouritism even if the membership to the group was random and short-term
schaller 1991, implications
Shows that stereotyping can be explained through SIT, because an individual’s self concept is derived from perceived membership in a group
If the way they perceive their group is positive, the individual will perceive themselves positively
Schaller 1991, strengths
high in reliability because it is replicating Tajfel
schaller 1991, weaknesses
Artificial because we learn about people’s traits/character through their behaviour rather than statements about them
Very controlled conditions
Less ecological validity
Low population validity, cannot generalise
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, aim
investigate illusory correlation of group size and negative behaviour for stereotype formation
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, sample + method
Participants read about 2 made up groups (a=26 b=13)
Descriptions based on positive and negative behaviours
Told that ‘a’ was larger
Had to rank members of each group:
→ 20 attributes given to a or b e.g. popular
→ give example of behaviour and say if person doing it was in a or b
→ asked to estimate how many statements for each group were undesirable
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, results
Most undesirable given to minority (b)
Most desirable given to majority (a)
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, conclusion
Illusory correlation may be due to group size
Minority (b) was smaller → negative traits were more distinct and seem to be representative of the group
Negative stereotypes are more common for smaller groups
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, linking
Hamilton & Gifford argued that this was because the minority group was by nature smaller in number, their negative behaviours appeared more distinct and appear to be representative of the group.
So, one minority male is caught stealing and it appears to be related to the fact that he is a minority.
This demonstrates why negative stereotypes may be more common for minority groups than for the majority. Such research has led to the modern practice in many countries not to report the race or ethnicity of people who have been charged with a crime
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, study repeat
Redid study, sample=70f
Not told that ‘b’ was the minority
Showed illusory correlation but ‘b’ had more positive stereotypes
By telling participants that ‘b’ was minority, they may be primed to see them more negatively
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, strengths
The researchers created two groups, A and B, for which there would be no pre-existing stereotypes. This increased the level of internal validity.
The study was a repeated measure design. The IVs were the positive or negative statements - and the size of each group. The conditions were concurrent. This means that there were not two distinct conditions run separately. This eliminates the variable of participant variability - all participants took part in all aspects of the study.
Hamilton + Gifford 1976, weaknesses
It was, however, highly artificial - meaning that ecological validity was low. We cannot know to what extent this predicts the development of stereotypes under natural conditions. In real life, there is much more context to making stereotypes - this could include economic competition, legitimate or unwarranted fear of others, institutionalised racism or prejudice, and/or actual experiences with members of the other group.
stereotype formation, critical thinking
There have been practical applications of this study. For example, it has been found that doctors tend to “over-remember” poor health practices in obese patients compared to other patients (Madey and Ondrus, 1999). It suggests that stigmatised patients suffer more from an illusory correlation bias than non-stigmatized patients. (H+G)
Practical applications to real life stereotypes
Difficult to test due to it being a mental process, other factors like social identity salience difficult to control
what may stereotypes affect
may affect the way people think about us (prejudice) and treat us (discrimination)
may affect how we think about ourselves
stereotype threat
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 and leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy
self-fulfilling prophecy
when an individual internalises stereotypes, which leads to a change in behaviour that confirms the stereotype
Steele and Aronson 1995, aim
to see how stereotype threat affects test performance in African Americans
Steele and Aronson 1995, sample
114 black and white undergraduates
Steele and Aronson 1995, independent variables
(1) race of the participant (2) test descriptors- test of intellectual ability and test of problem solving skills
Steele and Aronson 1995, dependent variable
performance on the test
Steele and Aronson 1995, method
participants given a standardised test of verbal ability
Steele and Aronson 1995, results
African Americans who believed it was a test of their ability did worse than the white participants.
However, when they believed it was a test of problem solving, they did just as well
Steele and Aronson 1995, conclusion
stereotype threat reduces test performance
Steele and Aronson 1995, strengths
Reliability= high, all results were consistent (replicated), standardised test of verbal ability
Applications= changes in the education system e.g. sets, job interviews, workplace (ethics, race), promotions, media- change stereotypes
Validity= control, not a difference in ability so it must be stereotype threat, 4th experiment had a race questionnaire, verbal scores from SATs were taken to ensure they were all within the norm of verbal performance
Ethics= 👍they were debriefed
The study made use of an independent samples 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 minimised. However, a matched-pairs design may have been a better approach.
Steele and Aronson 1995, weaknesses
Generalisability= low as only uni students (used to tests), more influenced by stereotypes, BUT this stereotype is mostly affecting this age group, ecological validity- education
Ethics= 👎reinforces stereotype
The sample was made up of Stanford University students, so it may not be representative and thus difficult to generalise the findings.
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.
Only students were used, who may be more salient of stereotypes about intelligence compared to other ages
stone 2002, aim
To determine whether the way a sport is framed would affect the performance of members of different social groups.
stone 2002, participants
White athletes
African American athletes (control group)
stone 2002, method
PPS told that they were going to be tested on a golf-related activity which was either described as:
1) Reflecting “factors correlated w/ natural athletic ability” (high stereotype threat)
→ White athletes tend to feel that their athletic ability is not “natural”, therefore, is a stereotype threat.
2) Reflecting “factors correlated w/ general sports performance” (low stereotype threat).
- PPS were allowed to practise for as long as they liked b/f the task.
stone 2002, results
White PPS practised significantly less in the high threat compared w/ the low threat condition.
AA did not show any difference in both conditions
White athletes did, however, perform worse when the task was framed as a diagnostic of the athlete’s “sports intelligence”.
stone 2002, conclusion
The findings suggest that one effect of stereotype threat is reduced effort in an attempt to offer psychological protection by providing an explanation for failure (self-handicapping).
It is believed that such “self-handicapping” can offer psychological protection by providing an explanation for failure even while undermining performance.
This reduced effort demonstrates the negative consequences of stereotypes on performance even when not addressed explicitly.
stone 2002, strengths
Natural task and setting- high ecological validity
stone 2002, weaknesses
Could be socially sensitive research because it highlights stereotypes and could imply that certain groups might not try as hard
stereotype threat, critical thinking
Hard to test as it is a mental process, other factors (confounding variables) e.g. stress may be involved and affect results
Vague theory → based on the idea that people usually use superficial criteria to form stereotypes and once knows of it, it affects them
Evidence: Steele and Aronson 1995, replicable and not artificial
Applications to educational settings e.g. sets, work space
Hard to test, measure and quantify
Variables are highly subjective and open to interpretation
Based on common sense → we affect and are affected by others’ attitudes towards us
Research is inconsistent → doesn’t work for all stereotypes and all groups
