Sociocultural Approach to Behaviour Flashcards
Explain one influence of culture on behaviour.
Explain one cultural origin of behaviour.
Culture: a “unique meaning and information system, shared by a group of individuals and transmited across generations”.
Cultural Norms: the unique sets of attitutes, belifs and behaviours specific to a particular culture.
Cultural Transmission: teh process of passing cultural norms from one generation to another.
Socialization: the process by which social norms are incorporated by individuals.
Study to mention: Chiu et al.
Discuss the study conducted by Chiu et al. (2009)
AIM: to carry out a cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles between Chinese and American students.
PARTCIPANTS:
- Chinese students (tradition based, collectivistic approach, emphasize dependence on family)
- US students
- large sample size (around 500)
PROCEDURE:
- 28 item cognitive style test
- consisted of 3 pictures and they were asked to group the two as a pair and leave one out
RESULTS:
US students scored higher in:
- analytic style, grouped objects based on different parts (human figures, both are holding a gun)
- categorical style, cow and chicken (both are animals)
Chinese students scored higher in
- contextual style, basis on commonality (group cow and grass (cow eats grass))
CONCLUSION:
- Chinese students process info holistically based on relationships.
- US students focused on components and categorisation of groups.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- confounding variables were controlled (comparable characteristics such as family classes (middle) and district (rural))
- high internalized validity
Weaknessess:
- low ecological validity
- low population validity (low generalization for the whole world, however high generalizability for US and China.)
Explain the role of one cultural dimension in human behaviour.
Outline one way cultural dimensions can influence behaviour.
Cultural Dimentions: general factors underlying cross cultural differences in values and behaviours.
Studies to use:
- Hofstede et al.
- Finkelstein et al.
- Berry and Katz.
- Lyengar
Explain the study done by Hofstede et al.
AIM: to identify dimensions underlying cultural differences in values, attitudes and behaviour.
PARTCIPANTS:
- 117000 IBM employees
- sample is European
PROCEDURE:
- a worldwide survey of values (6 years)
- statistically analysed to identify hidden dimentions
- focus set on the key differences submitted by the employees in different countries.
RESULTS:
Hofstede identified 4 main dimentions:
1) Power distance
2) Uncertainty avoidance
3) Individualism vs. collectivism
4) Femininity vs. masculinity
2 more were later added:
5) Short term vs. long term
6) Indulgence vs. Restraint
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- high cross-cultural validity
- large sample size no ethical concerns
Weaknessess:
- survey may have consisted of leading questions
- questions were originally in English- meaning could’ve been lost in translation
relies of accuracy of participants’ responses
- qualitative content analysis of data could facilitate confirmation bias
What is Individualism vs. Collectivism?
Individualism:
- High value on automony
- Individual achievement
- Self expression is important; “be yourself”
- Privacy
Collectivism:
- High value on the group
- Family, clan, organization
- Loyalty
- Devotion
- Less privacy, less of a sense.
Explain the study conducted by Finkelstein et al.
AIM: investigate the effect of cultural dimentions (individualism vs. collectivism) on the reason for volounteering.
PARTCIPANTS:
- 194 undergraduates
- (fin=1, ken=9, tein=4)
- completed online questionnaires (in exchange for extra-credit).
PROCEDURE:
- online questionnaire
- consisted of questions relating to the two hypothesized reasons behind volunteering:
1) motivation (to help)
an approach of a genuine desire to help - taking into account the other person’s status
2) role identity (to indirectly help oneself)
maintain self-image
RESULTS:
- individualists were more motivated to volunteer for career-related reasons
- collectivists were found to have a stronger association to altruistic intentions (the desire to strengthen social ties)
- collectivists had the tendency to volunteer to build a stronger role identity
CONCLUSION:
- Both individualists and collectivists engage in the act of volunteering (so there is an influence of indiv/collect vs. prosocial), yet the reasons behind why they do differ.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- high ecological validity
Weaknessess:
- low construct validity
- low internal validity (cross-sectional and self-report surveys)
- not all college students may have experienced volunteering (demand characteristics, social desirability bias)
Explain the study done by Berry and Katz.
AIM: investigate the effect of cultural dimentions (individualism vs. collectivism) on conformity levels.
PARTCIPANTS:
- Temne (food accumulating= collectivistic)
- Inuit (hunting and fishing= individualistic)
- Canada
PROCEDURE:
- Asch experiment
- Individuals were placed in rooms and were asked to choose a line out of a set of lines that was most similar to a given line
- On the third trial, experimenter gave the individual a “hint” of what others in their culture chose
- Observed if the participants conformed to the answers of their ingroup
RESULTS:
- The Temne had high conformity levels.
- The Inuit had the lowest conformity rates (unaffected by the sugestion of the majority)
CONCLUSION:
- High conformity among the Temne (agricultural economy and needed to depend on cooperation in farming)
- Lower conformity among the Inuit results (hunting alone)
- Cultural dimension of individualism vs. collectivism affected conformity levels.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- High construct validity: (controlled environment=causality)
- High population validity: Cross-cultural (etic) (demonstrates conformity is not limited to a single cultural group)
- High internal validity
Weaknessess:
- Low ecological validity
Explain the study conducted by Lyengar.
- focused on giving and volounteering amoung strangers
- collectivistic cultures tend to discriminate in favour of their ingroup
- stranger-on-stranger helping is less common in collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures.
Outline social cognitive theory.
With reference to one study, explain social cognitive theory.
Social Cognitive Theory: describes the influence of individual experiences, the actions of others, and environmental factors on individual behaviors.
Socialization: the process of becoming a member of a social group.
- primary socialization
- secondary socialization
- gender socialization
- cultural socialization
Direct Learning: individual preforms an action and experiences its concequences which reinforces or inhinits further repetition of this action.
Indirect Learning: an individual observes another person’s actions and their concequences.
Studies to use:
- Bandura, Ross and Ross
Explain the study done by Bandura, Ross and Ross.
AIM: To investigate wether children would imitate aggression (towards an inflatable Bobodoll) that was role-played by an observed adult.
PARTCIPANTS:
- 72 children (3-6 year old)
- 36 boys and 36 girls
- divided into groups according to their aggression evaluation from their parents and teachers.
PROCEDURE:
Groups:
1) Group 1 was exposed to adult models who showed aggression by beating up a Bobo Doll. Models were of both genders.
2) Group 2 observed an adult model who displayed no aggression. Models were of both genders.
3) Group 3 was a controlled group who did not see any model. (Control)
What was done:
1) Child was seated in the corner of a room and watched the video
2) Children were then walked to another room, where they were told not to play with the doll
3) Children got to play with the doll.
RESULTS:
- Children who observed the aggressive model showed significantly more aggression both physically and verbally.
- Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression.
- Girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.
CONCLUSION:
- Social learning theory was demonstrated in the study because the children showed signs of observational, indirect learning.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
Weaknessess:
- ethics; induced agression
- low population validity
- low ecological validity
- low internal validity (children unfamiliar with doll were 5 times more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour.)
- low construct validity (oversimplification)
Describe social identity theory.
Explain how one study supports social identity theory.
Social Identity: the part of self-concept that is based on group membership.
Social Categorization: the cognitive process of categorizing people into ingroups and out-groups.
Studies to use:
- Abrams et al.
Describe the study done by Abrams et al.
AIM: To investigate whether social categorization has an effect on conformity
PARTCIPANTS:
- 50 undergraduate students enrolled in a psychology class.
DESIGN:
- independent measures design
- 4 groups (ingroup, outgroup, public response, private response)
PROCEDURE:
- Researchers split the participants into two groups and told them they were taking a test on how good their perception were
- put into a testing room with three confederates.
- Group 1 the confederates were introduced as intro to psychology students from another university (ingroup),
- Group 2 were ancient history students (outgroup)
- throughout 18 trials, confederates answered the question correctly 9 times, and incorrectly 9 times.
RESULTS:
- conformity was maximized in the ingroup condition
- conformity was minimized in the outgroup condition
- ingroup and outgroup private conditions did not differ significantly
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
internal validity: all participants recieved the same line tests, at all participants the confederates answered correctly 9 times and incorrectly 9 times.
Weaknessess:
- low ecological validity
- low construct validity: social ideninty is very difficult to measure and experiment on.
- low population validity (small sample size)
Explain how stereotypes may influence human behaviour.
Explain how and/or why stereotypes are formed.
Stereotypes: “little pictures in out heads that help us interpret what we see”
- assign identical characteristics to any person in a group, regardless of variation among teh members of the group.
- form due to existing scheemas
Accessibility: the easiness to access a scheema (due to priming).
Priming: recent personal experiences which increase the accessibility of scheemas.
Stereotype Threat: anticipation of a situation that can potentially confirm a persons negative stereotype.
Studies to use:
- Steele and Aronson
- Rosenthal and Jacobson
Explain the study conducted by Steele and Aronson.
AIM: to investigate the effect of stereotype threats on the intellectual preformance of African American students.
PARTCIPANTS:
- 114 participants (steel=11, aron=4)
- male and female
- black and white race
- undergraduates from stanford university
PROCEDURE:
- two independent variables: the race of the participant and the test descriptions.
- the participants were given a 30-minute standardized test of verbal ability (similar to the SAT)
- the tests were introduces in 3 different ways:
1) experimental condition (stereotype threat): participants were told that the test diagnosed intellectual ability: “a genuine test of your verbal abilities and limitations”
2) control condition: a problem solving task “to better understand the psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems”
3) a challenge (test motivation (genuine desire)) - participants were randomly assigned (equal numbers of participants in each condition).
RESULTS:
- there was no significant difference between male and female participants.
- African-Americans did poorly when they believed that the test was a test of their ability,
- African-Americans did just as well as the white Americans when they believed that it was a test of problem-solving skills.
- African-American participants performed worse than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition while their performance equaled that of their white counterparts in the control condition
CONCLUSION:
- when a person is aware of a negative stereotype or expectation, the amount anxiety may increase and performance will hence decrease.
- these effects can, however, be decreased by awareness of that stereotype.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- high construct validity (cause and effect relationship)
- objectivity
- standardization
- high internal validity (increased control and accuracy)
Weaknessess:
- total control = impossible
- low ecological validity: artificial (lacks mundane realism)
- biased results
Explain the study conducted by Rosenthan and Jacobson.
AIM: to investigate the effect of positive stereotypes held upon individuals by their society on the behaviour of the stereotyped group.
- to investigate if students of whom greater intellectual growth is expected will actually show greater intellectual growth in a period of one year or less.
PARTCIPANTS:
- 320 students (grades 1-6)
(ros/ent/han=3; ja/co/bs/on=2; =0)
- same public school
PROCEDURE:
- students went IQ testing
- teachers in the school were told that certain students were expected to be “growth spurts”, based on the results of their IQ tests (“spurters” were chosen at random)
- IQ testing has once again been completed at the end of the study.
RESULTS:
- throughout the year of the experiment:
1) control-group students gained an average of 8.4 IQ points
2) experimental group students gained 12.2 IQ points.
- difference was most obvious in young students
- The advantage of favorable expectations was more visible in reasoning IQ as compared to verbal IQ
CONCLUSION:
- Changes in teacher’s expectations produce changes in student’s achievement.
- Stereotypes we have about other people may affect their behavior through the process of self-fulfilling prophecy.
EVALUATION:
Srengths:
- high ecological validity (generalized and applied in a real-world setting)
- single blind experiment (the experimenters and teachers knew of the study, but the students were not aware)
- low participant bias (students were not aware of the variables being investigated)
Weaknessess:
- low population validity (all from the same school)
- low internal validity (confounding variables- the growth in IQ could be attributed to outside factors)
- low ethics: is it ethical to experiment on children in such a way that places them behind their peers developmentally.
