sociocultural approach: individual and the group

Question 1

social identity theory: what is it based on and what does it argue

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

what did Tajfel and Turner argue

Answer 2

there are 3 stages on social identity theory:
social categorisation
social identification
social comparison

Question 3

social categorisation

Answer 3

process by which we identify which groups we belong to and which we do not
(identify the in-group and the out-group)

Question 4

social identification

Answer 4

process of adopting and conforming to the group’s norms and values, as well as linking self esteem to group identity

Question 5

social comparison

Answer 5

process of comparing to the in-group to the out-group: favoriting in-group & being biased towards the out-group

Question 6

positive distinctiveness

Answer 6

though the process of social comparison, we try to make our in-group as different to the out-group as we can

Question 7

salience

Answer 7

we are more aware of that particular social identity

Question 8

tajfel et al, aim

Answer 8

to investigate of intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups

Question 9

tajfel et al, sample + method

Answer 9

48 boys, 14-15 years old
randomly assign boy to one group
The matrix:
Maximising difference
Maximising profit
Largest reward to in-group

Question 10

tajfel et al, results

Answer 10

prioritised maximising the difference, even at cost of total profit for the ingroup, positive distinctiveness

Question 11

tajfel et al, conclusion

Answer 11

in-group favouritism and out-group bias exists even if the groups are arbitrary (minimal groups paradigm)

Question 12

tajfel et al, link

Answer 12

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)

Question 13

tajfel et al, strengths

Answer 13

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

Question 14

tajfel et al, weaknesses

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Levine study AMRC

Answer 15

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

Question 16

levine strengths

Answer 16

Natural setting, higher ecological validity, can expect PPS to act in the same way as real life

Question 17

levine weaknesses

Answer 17

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

Question 18

social identity theory critical thinking

Answer 18

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

Question 19

social cognitive theory

Answer 19

behaviour is learnt through modelling, observation and imitation

Question 20

role models

Answer 20

people we look up to

Question 21

identification

Answer 21

person aligns themselves with role model & wants to be like them

Question 22

self efficacy

Answer 22

believing that you have the capacity to execute a specific action

Question 23

according to social cognitive theory we learn in 3 ways

Answer 23

observation
modelling
imitation

Question 24

observation

Answer 24

watching the model do something

Question 25

modelling

Answer 25

role model demonstrates behaviour

Question 26

imitation

Answer 26

copying the model’s behaviour

Question 27

conditions necessary for social learning

Answer 27

attention
retention
motivation
potential

Question 28

attention

Answer 28

attend to the behaviour the model is modelling

Question 29

retention

Answer 29

remember the features of the behaviour/action

Question 30

motivation

Answer 30

wanting to repeat the behaviour the model is performing and expect an outcome

Question 31

potential

Answer 31

the observer has the physical and/or mental capability to repeat the observed behaviour

Question 32

direct reinforcement

Answer 32

our behaviour gets rewarded, so we are more likely to repeat that behaviour

Question 33

vicarious reinforcement

Answer 33

we watch someone’s behaviour get rewarded so we are more likely to copy the behaviour

Question 34

factors affecting learning potential

Answer 34

model: stands out, consistent behaviour, liked+respected, member of in-group, reinforced behaviour

Question 35

bandura, aim

Answer 35

to see if children would imitate aggressive behaviour

Question 36

bandura, sample

Answer 36

72 children, aged 3-5

Question 37

bandura, method

Answer 37

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

Question 38

bandura, results

Answer 38

children exposed to aggressive behaviour are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour, control group imitated the least, imitated same gender more (social comparison)

Question 39

bandura, conclusion

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Bandura, linking

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

bandura, strengths

Answer 41

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

Question 42

bandura, weaknesses

Answer 42

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

Question 43

joy et al, aim + type of study

Answer 43

to see the impact of TV on children’s aggressive behaviour

Longitudinal and natural study

Question 44

joy et al, method

Answer 44

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

Question 45

joy et al, results

Answer 45

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

Question 46

joy et al, conclusion

Answer 46

Exposure to TV significantly increased both physical and verbal aggression in both genders
Watching violence causes violence

Question 47

joy et al, strengths

Answer 47

More ethical as aggression is not induced, the addition of TV is something that would have happened anyway

Question 48

joy et al, weaknesses

Answer 48

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)

Question 49

social cognitive theory critical thinking

Answer 49

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.

Question 50

stereotype

Answer 50

a generalisation about a group of people

Question 51

generalisation

Answer 51

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)

Question 52

schema

Answer 52

a mental organisation of information, containing everything we know about a certain thing

Question 53

reciprocal determinism

Answer 53

model of human behaviour, states that there are 3 factors influencing how humans behave:
behavioural, environmental, personal

Question 54

behavioural factors

Answer 54

actions, efforts, choices, statements

Question 55

environmental factors

Answer 55

actions of others, social context

Question 56

personal factors

Answer 56

attitudes, values, self-efficacy, personality

Question 57

categorisation

Answer 57

process by grouping people together based on certain characteristics

Question 58

prejudice

Answer 58

an attitude
make a judgement about individuals with little information about them except for group membership

Question 59

discrimination

Answer 59

behaviour of negative actions towards one or a group of people, can be due to group membership

Question 60

confirmation bias

Answer 60

tendency to search for / favour information that confirms/supports personal beliefs or values

Question 61

positive distinctiveness

Answer 61

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)

Question 62

illusory correlations

Answer 62

a bias where we perceive a relationship/association that doesn’t exist (may be due to confirmation bias)

Question 63

where do stereotypes come from

Answer 63

social identity theory
illusory correlations

Question 64

social identity theory

Answer 64

→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

Question 65

illusory correlations

Answer 65

→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

Question 66

Schaller 1991, aim

Answer 66

determine how group membership may lead to stereotyping

Question 67

schaller 1991, method

Answer 67

141 US university students
Randomly assign participants to a group
Give each participant statements about members of both groups (desirable and undesirable behaviours)

Question 68

schaller 1991, results

Answer 68

When asked about their group, they recalled stereotyping statements favouring their group (in-group bias)
Better recalled negative stereotypes of out-group

Question 69

Schaller 1991, conclusion

Answer 69

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

Question 70

schaller 1991, implications

Answer 70

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

Question 71

Schaller 1991, strengths

Answer 71

high in reliability because it is replicating Tajfel

Question 72

schaller 1991, weaknesses

Answer 72

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

Question 73

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, aim

Answer 73

investigate illusory correlation of group size and negative behaviour for stereotype formation

Question 74

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, sample + method

Answer 74

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

Question 75

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, results

Answer 75

Most undesirable given to minority (b)
Most desirable given to majority (a)

Question 76

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, conclusion

Answer 76

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

Question 77

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, linking

Answer 77

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

Question 78

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, study repeat

Answer 78

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

Question 79

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, strengths

Answer 79

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.

Question 80

Hamilton + Gifford 1976, weaknesses

Answer 80

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.

Question 81

stereotype formation, critical thinking

Answer 81

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

Question 82

what may stereotypes affect

Answer 82

may affect the way people think about us (prejudice) and treat us (discrimination)
may affect how we think about ourselves

Question 83

stereotype threat

Answer 83

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

Question 84

self-fulfilling prophecy

Answer 84

when an individual internalises stereotypes, which leads to a change in behaviour that confirms the stereotype

Question 85

Steele and Aronson 1995, aim

Answer 85

to see how stereotype threat affects test performance in African Americans

Question 86

Steele and Aronson 1995, sample

Answer 86

114 black and white undergraduates

Question 87

Steele and Aronson 1995, independent variables

Answer 87

(1) race of the participant (2) test descriptors- test of intellectual ability and test of problem solving skills

Question 88

Steele and Aronson 1995, dependent variable

Answer 88

performance on the test

Question 89

Steele and Aronson 1995, method

Answer 89

participants given a standardised test of verbal ability

Question 90

Steele and Aronson 1995, results

Answer 90

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

Question 91

Steele and Aronson 1995, conclusion

Answer 91

stereotype threat reduces test performance

Question 92

Steele and Aronson 1995, strengths

Answer 92

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.

Question 93

Steele and Aronson 1995, weaknesses

Answer 93

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

Question 94

stone 2002, aim

Answer 94

To determine whether the way a sport is framed would affect the performance of members of different social groups.

Question 95

stone 2002, participants

Answer 95

White athletes
African American athletes (control group)

Question 96

stone 2002, method

Answer 96

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.

Question 97

stone 2002, results

Answer 97

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”.

Question 98

stone 2002, conclusion

Answer 98

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.

Question 99

stone 2002, strengths

Answer 99

Natural task and setting- high ecological validity

Question 100

stone 2002, weaknesses

Answer 100

Could be socially sensitive research because it highlights stereotypes and could imply that certain groups might not try as hard

Question 101

stereotype threat, critical thinking

Answer 101

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