SocioCultural Approach (SL) Flashcards
Social Identity Theory
Dobbs and Crano (2001)
Aim:
To explore how outgroup accountability influences ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination within the Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP), providing insights into aversive discrimination and Social Identity Theory.
Method:
Participants: 97 undergraduate communication students.
Prejudice Reduction Evidence Database
Design: A 2 (accountability vs. no accountability) × 2 (high competence vs. low competence) × 2 (majority vs. minority) factorial design.
Procedure:
Participants were randomly assigned to groups based on a trivial task, leading them to believe they were either in a majority or minority group with varying competence levels.
They were then asked to allocate points between ingroup and outgroup members, with some required to justify their allocations, introducing outgroup accountability.
Results:
Majority Group Allocators:
When accountable to the outgroup, ingroup favoritism decreased, suggesting that justifying decisions reduced bias.
Minority Group Allocators:
When accountable to the outgroup, ingroup favoritism increased, indicating that justification requirements might heighten bias among minorities.
Conclusion:
Outgroup accountability affects intergroup discrimination differently based on group status. For majority groups, accountability reduces bias, while for minority groups, it may exacerbate it. These findings challenge simplistic applications of Social Identity Theory and highlight the complexity of intergroup dynamics.
Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura et al (1961)
Aim:
To investigate whether children would imitate aggressive behavior observed in an adult model, supporting Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Specifically, Bandura aimed to explore if aggression could be learned through observation and imitation rather than only through direct reinforcement.
Method:
Participants:
72 children (36 boys and 36 girls), ages 3 to 6 years, from a nursery school in California.
Procedure:
Pre-Test:
Children were individually tested to assess their level of aggressive behavior. This was done by observing how children interacted with toys (including a Bobo doll) in a controlled playroom.
Conditioning:
The children were then divided into three groups, each exposed to a different model:
Group 1 (Aggressive model): Children watched an adult physically and verbally abuse a Bobo doll (e.g., punching, kicking, and using verbal aggression like “Sock him in the nose”).
Group 2 (Non-aggressive model): Children watched an adult behave calmly and ignore the Bobo doll.
Group 3 (Control group): Children were not exposed to any model.
Observation Phase:
After watching the model, the children were then left alone in a room with the same toys (including the Bobo doll). Their behavior was observed for 20 minutes to see whether they would imitate the aggressive or non-aggressive behaviors they had witnessed.
Results:
Children who observed the aggressive model were more likely to display physical and verbal aggression toward the Bobo doll, imitating specific actions (e.g., hitting the doll with a mallet).
Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression, especially if they had observed a male model.
Girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression, and both boys and girls were more likely to imitate the behavior of a same-sex model.
The non-aggressive model group showed little to no aggression toward the doll.
Conclusion:
The study demonstrated that children learn aggressive behaviors through observation and imitation. This supports Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which posits that learning occurs through observing others (modeling), especially when the observed behavior is seen to result in rewards or punishments.
Aggression was not directly taught through reinforcement but rather learned through observational learning, reinforcing the idea that behavior can be learned without direct reinforcement.
Formation of stereotypes and their effects on behaviour
Spencer (1999)
Aim:
To investigate the effects of stereotype threat on performance, particularly in the context of gender differences in mathematics. The study aimed to explore whether women performed worse on a math test when reminded of the stereotype that women generally perform worse than men in math.
Method:
Participants:
199 female university students.
Procedure:
The participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
Stereotype threat condition: Women were told that the math test they were about to take showed gender differences, and men typically outperform women on this test.
No stereotype threat condition: Women were told that the test was designed to be a non-gender-specific measure of math ability and that there was no expectation of gender differences in performance.
Both groups then took the same math test under these conditions.
The key manipulation was in how the women were primed regarding gender stereotypes in math performance.
Results:
Women in the stereotype threat condition performed worse on the math test than women in the no stereotype threat condition.
The performance of women in the no stereotype threat condition was comparable to the performance of men, suggesting that when stereotype threat was not activated, gender differences in performance were minimized.
The study highlighted that the threat of confirming negative stereotypes can negatively impact performance, especially in areas where individuals feel their abilities are being scrutinized based on stereotypes (e.g., women in math).
Conclusion:
The study provided evidence that stereotype threat can have a significant impact on performance, particularly in areas where a negative stereotype about a group’s abilities exists.
Women under stereotype threat performed worse on the math test because the fear of confirming the stereotype interfered with their ability to perform well.
The findings support the idea that stereotype threat is a psychological phenomenon that can hinder performance and contribute to gender differences in various domains, such as math and science.
Culture and its influence on behaviour and cognition: Study one example of culture and its influence on behaviour and cognition.
Kulkofsky et al (2011)
Aim:
To investigate whether cultural differences influence the formation of flashbulb memories, particularly in terms of how individuals from different cultures remember and report highly emotional events.
Method:
Participants: 274 participants from five different countries: China, Germany, Turkey, the UK, and the USA.
Procedure:
Participants were asked to recall a major public event (such as the death of a political leader or a natural disaster) that had occurred in the previous year.
They were then asked to rate the personal significance of the event and how much they had discussed the event with others.
Participants were also asked to report the details of their memories of the event (e.g., where they were, who they were with).
The researchers were interested in how cultural factors influenced the formation of flashbulb memories, particularly the role of individualism and collectivism in these memories.
Results:
The study found that cultural differences did influence the formation and characteristics of flashbulb memories:
Collectivist cultures (like China) were more likely to report memories that were less personal and more focused on the event’s social implications.
Individualist cultures (like the USA) were more likely to report highly personal and detailed memories of the event.
The frequency of discussion about the event was also a significant factor in how vivid and detailed flashbulb memories were. The more participants talked about the event, the more detailed and emotional their memories were.
Conclusion:
The study concluded that cultural factors influence how people form and maintain flashbulb memories. In individualist cultures, there is a greater emphasis on personal experiences, which leads to more detailed memories of public events. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, flashbulb memories are often more generalized and socially oriented, reflecting the culture’s focus on the group rather than the individual.
Social and cultural factors (such as the importance of discussing events with others) also play a significant role in shaping flashbulb memories.
Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede (1973)
Aim of the Study:
The aim of Hofstede’s (1973) study was to explore how the values in the workplace are influenced by culture. He examined the work-related values of employees in different countries, focusing on understanding how individualism and collectivism shaped behavior in various cultures.
Procedure:
Hofstede analyzed data from IBM employees in more than 50 countries. The data were collected through surveys, and participants were asked to rate various work-related values and behaviors.
He used this information to identify cultural dimensions, one of which was individualism vs. collectivism.
Key Findings:
Individualism vs. Collectivism is one of Hofstede’s primary cultural dimensions.
Individualistic cultures (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom) emphasize personal goals, independence, and the importance of the individual. People in individualistic cultures tend to have loose ties with their social groups and are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families.
Collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan, China, Mexico) place a higher value on group goals and loyalty to the group. People in collectivistic cultures are more likely to consider the needs of their family, group, or society over their own personal goals.
Hofstede’s findings showed that there were clear cultural differences in how people defined themselves and interacted within groups, impacting their behavior at work and in social settings.
Application to Cultural Dimensions:
Individualism vs. Collectivism directly relates to how a culture values the autonomy of individuals versus the interdependence of group members.
This cultural dimension explains how people from individualistic cultures may prioritize personal achievement and self-reliance, while those from collectivistic cultures may prioritize harmony, family obligations, and group success over individual needs.
Conclusion:
Hofstede’s study demonstrates how cultural dimensions, particularly individualism vs. collectivism, can affect behaviors, work dynamics, and social interactions.
It provides valuable insights into cross-cultural differences and how they shape people’s values and behavior in different societies.
