Sociocultural Studies Flashcards
Explain Social Identity Theory, use one study to support. (Tajfel)
Social Psychology studies how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, and implied presence of others, referring to the internalised social norms that humans are influenced by even when they are alone. One theory which looks into social psychology is the Social Identity theory. The theory shows how a person has not one ‘personal self’ but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. In other words an individual has multiple ‘social identities’. The theory suggests that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorise themselves into one or more in-groups building parts of their identity on the basis of membership of that group. Some of the theory’s claims have been supported by research using the minimal group paradigm. This is when participants are randomly classified as members of two groups on the basis of a very trivial criterion. The groups are purely cognitive as there is no objective reason for group members to compete. This is a dangerous way to form groups as the conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups which therefore could lead to social judgements about people and their race, gender, ethical background, cultural beliefs and more. These two groups are known as in group favouritism and out group discrimination. In group favouritism is where a person’s behaviour is biased towards the benefits to their in-group and out group discrimination is where a person’s behaviour creates disadvantaged for their out-group. This is because people search for interconnection and belonging which also links to social categorisation and comparison as well as positive distinctiveness. Social categorisation looks at the way people put others into categories based on their gender, ethics and other things and social comparison is where people compare themselves and their groups to others seeing a favourable bias to their group. Positive distinctiveness is the motivation to show our personal in-group is superior to our out group which helps build self-esteem. All of this is with the intention of building our social identity.
A lab experiment conducted by Tajfel et al in 1971 supports this theory and the minimal group paradigms. The aim of the experiment was to clarify the strategy used by participants when making between-group choices. The 48 participants, all of which were boys aged 14-15 were asked to rate 12 paintings by the abstract painters Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, however they were not told which artist had painted which painting. The participants were then randomly allocated to groups and then told that they had preferred either Klee or Kandinsky. Each participant was then given the task to award 2 other boys, one from his group and one from another. The only information they were given was code numbers and the name of the group of the two boys they were supposed to award. There were two systems of awarding points. Tajfel created a point allocation system to test how specific variables could influence the boys’ choices of reward 1. Maximum joint profit (giving the largest reward to members of both groups) 2. Maximum in-group profit (giving the largest reward to a member of the in-group) 3. Maximum differences (giving the largest possible difference in reward between a member of the in and out group. The way it actually worked is as follows: If a Klee member chose a high value for another Klee member, it would give a higher profit to the out-group. If a Klee member chose a mid-range value for another Klee member, it would give the same point for the other group. If a Klee member chose a low value for another Klee member, it would award only 1 point to the other team. It was found that the maximum joint profit had very little effect on the boys’ choices however when the boys had to choose between maximising profit for all and maximising profit for members of their in-group, they clearly favoured their own group. It was also found that when choosing between maximising the difference in reward against profit for all, the boys were willing to give their own team fewer points with the goal of maximising the difference between their in and out groups. The boys left the study with fewer points than if they had given each other the most points possible. These findings lead researchers to the conclusion that out-group discrimination is very easy to trigger and that once it has been triggered, we have norms of behaviour which include discriminating against the out-group. They also concluded that there is a natural tendency of members of a group to favour their own in-group. This links to the Social Identity Theory as the participants strived to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem, based on either personal identity or various social identities.
Explain the Social Cognitive theory, use one study to support
The social cognitive theory suggests that behaviour is modelled by other members of a group and is acquired through observation or imitation based on consequences of behaviour. This learning can occur indirectly through reciprocal determinism or directly through vicarious reinforcement. Reciprocal determinism is an interaction of 3 factors which include; personal, behavioural and environmental and vicarious reinforcement is learning through others depending on whether they are rewarded positive reinforcement) or punished (negative reinforcement). Depending on the observers self-efficacy depends on whether the behaviour is acquired. Self-efficacy is the extent to which an individual believes they can model a particular behaviour.
In this theory, there are four cognitive factors that determine whether the behaviour is acquired or not. First there is attention. To influence a behaviour, the learner must pay attention to the model. There are certain factors that influence whether attention is paid. These include; the attractiveness and authority of the model as well as the desirability of the behaviour. The next factor is retention. The learner must be able to remember the behaviour that has been observed in order to produce that behaviour immediately after some time. After retention comes motivation. The learner must want to replicate the behaviour seen. In order to do this, the learner must understand what the potential outcome is if they repeat that behaviour. This motivation is dependent upon consistency, identification of the model and linking to the model. If the model is consistent across behaviours then the learner is more likely to imitate them than if they behave differently. Learners also tend to imitate models who are like them and are warm and friendly rather than cold and un-caaring. The final factor is potential. To reproduce observed behaviour, the learner must physically and/or mentally be able to carry out the behaviour, therefore there needs to be a certain level of self-efficacy.
A lab experiment conducted in 1961 by Bandura et al supports this theory. The aim of the experiment was to find out how observing an adult model behaving aggressively towards an inflatable doll (Bobo Doll) influences children’s subsequent aggressive behaviour. The 72 participants, 36 male and 36 female aged from 3-5, were split randomly and allocated to the following conditions. 1. Aggressive model where the adult model behaved aggressively towards the Bobo Doll by following a script, 2. Non-Aggressive model where the adult model followed a similar script but aggressive actions were replaced with non-aggressive actions and 3. Control group where there was no adult model. Firstly a child was seated in one corner of a room and the model in the other. The child had a range of toys to play with as well as the adult who also had a mallet and inflatable Bobo Doll. In the aggressive condition, the model spent time playing with the toys and then turned to the Bobo Doll and starting acting aggressive towards it both physically and verbally. In the non-aggressive condition, the model played with the toys quietly. Next the child was taken to a room full of attractive toys and once an interest was sparked by the child they were taken to a third room. This room contained a one-way mirror and toys similar to the first room with a Bobo Doll. Observations were made about the Childs behaviour. This process occurred for all 72 children. The researchers found that the children exposed to the aggressive model increased the frequency of aggressive behaviour among the children and the child was more likely yo comfy the same sex model. Its was also found that boys were more likely to be aggressive than girls and were more likely to use physical aggression whereas the girls were more likely to use verbal aggression. This lead Bandura et al to the conclusion that learning can indeed be indirect and new behaviours can e learned by simply observing others. This links to the social cognitive theory as it demonstrates how modelled behaviours can be acquired through observation.
- Explain the formation of stereotypes, use one study to support
Stereotypes are an evaluative generalisation about a group of people which is either positive or negative. They are a cognitive process embedded in our interrelationships with others. Stereotypes are also a form of categorisation. This is when people are categorised based on shared characteristics. This categorisation then leads to o a generalisation or assumption made about a group and then those attributes are generalised to all members of that group. Schema processing then takes place where memory representations of stereotypes influence our perception and evaluation of stereotyped individuals. We then use our confirmation bias where people tend to pay attention to information that confirms their biased beliefs. This makes stereotypical thinking resistant to change.
Stereotypes are formed from the grain of truth of hypothesis which states that one experience with an individual causes that conclusion to be generalised to a group of people. This is also seen through illusory correlation which is when people see a relationship between two variables even when there isn’t one. After this we then use confirmation bias which is when we collect evidence that supports our bias and ignore everything that goes against it. An example of the formation of a stereotype is that people who wear glasses are smart. If we have an experience with someone with glasses that is smart, we make this generalisation to all people who wear glasses. When we meet other people who are smart and wear glasses this adds to our confirmation bias therefore forming a stereotype.
An experiment which investigates the formation of stereotypes was conducted in 1976 by Hamilton and Gifford. The aim of the experiment was to investigate illusory correlation. The 70 American undergraduates were shown a series of slides, each with a statement about a member of one of two groups named group A and group B. There were twice as many people in group A (26) as group B (13) therefore making group B the minority group. The participants were told that group B was smaller than group A before starting the experiment. Each statement was about one individual in one of the two groups; the statement was either positive or negative. Each group had the same proportion of positive and negative comments. Participants were then asked to rank members of each group on a series of 20 traits such as intelligence and popularity. After completing this task, they were given a booklet in which they were given a statement and then asked whether the person who did this was from group A or group B. Finally, they were asked how many of the statements for each group had been ‘undesirable’. Half of the group changed the order of measuring the dependent variables in order to avoid interference effects therefore, the booklet was completed before the trait rankings. Researchers found that Group A was ranked higher than group B for positive traits and lower fro negative traits. In the booklet, participants correctly recalled more positive traits for group A (74%) than fro group B (54%) snd more negative traits for group B (65%) than for group A (55%). Participants also overestimated the number of negative traits in the minority group, but this finding was not significant. These findings lead the researchers to the conclusion that because the minority group was by nature smaller in number, their negative behaviours appeared more distinct and appear to be representative of the group demonstrating why negative stereotypes may be more common for minority groups than for the majority. This links to the formation of stereotypes as it demonstrates how negative stereotypes are formed and why they may be more common for minority groups than for the majority.
