2) Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level of
analysis (for example, overt/covert observation, interviews, meta analysis, experiments).
Introduction: This paper will discuss the use of covert and overt observation, metaanalysis, surveys and experiments in the socio-cultural level of analysis, aiming to explore
how and why different research methods are used according to the specific characteristics
of a researcher’s aims. In order to explore this topic, the research of Zimbardo et al. (1971),
Shariff and Shariff (1954), Hoefstede (1973), Cialdini et al. (1973) and Harlow and Harlow
(1962).
OVERT OBSERVATION – Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)
Procedure: 24 male university students were assigned the role of either prisoner or prison
guard in a mock prison located within Stanford University. They were to be observed for
two weeks.
Findings / Conclusions: Prisoners experienced a loss of identity and prison guards took
on their role and became abusive. This study relates to Attribution Theory as it
demonstrated the effect of situational factors on behavior, as the participants allowed their
situation (i.e. their assigned roles in the prison) to dictate how they were to act.
Why overt observation was used: Zimbardo couldn’t have observed an actual prison
because he had to have some control over the participants of the study, so as to truly
observe the effect of the situational factors of the SPE on their behavior.
COVERT OBSERVATION – Robbers Cave Study (Sharif and Sharif, 1954)
Procedure: In a campsite, a group of campers were divided into two (rattlers and eagles).
They were then brought together to compete in various activities in order to create friction.
Then, they were made to undergo integration activities.
Findings / Conclusions: After establishing the in-groups, the two groups were hostile
towards each other until the integration activities. Finding common ground between the
two groups made them warm up towards each other. This demonstrates Social Identity
Theory because of the sense of identity the boys gained when they were sorted into their
respective ‘in-groups’.
Why covert observation was used: Covert observation increased the ecological validity of
this study. Posing and acting as camp leaders rather than overt observers, the researchers
were able to reduce bias brought on by researcher effects and social desirability.
META ANALYSIS – Cross-cultural studies of conformity (Smith and Bond, 1993)
Procedure, Findings, Conclusions: Researchers carried out a review of 31 conformity
studies and found that levels of conformity (i.e. the percentage of incorrect responses)
ranged from 14% among Belgian students and 58% among Indian teachers with Fiji, with
an average conformity rate of 31.2%. Conformity is lower among participants from
individualist cultures (25.3%) as compared to collectivist cultures (37.1%). Furthermore,
people who scored highly on Hoefstede’s collectivism scale tend to conform more than
those who score low.
Why meta analysis was used: Meta analysis makes use of other existing studies and
generates conclusions based on them. This method allows researchers to see the level of
consistency that is evident in multiple studies. This meta analysis probably includes a
variety of research methods as well across the studies being reviewed, demonstrating
consistency in results for different research methods. Looking extensively at the amount of
research support on a cross-cultural scale strengthens the amount of evidence in favor of
the topic, which in this case is conformity in individualist and collectivist cultures.
SURVEYS:
Two examples:
Hoefstede (1973): Began his early research into cultural dimensions at IBM where he
worked as an occupational psychologist.
Surveys Procedure: Carried out a content analysis of surveys regarding the morals of staff in
the work place.
Conclusions: From the breadth of his results, Hoefstede developed the concept of cultural
dimensions. He:
- Pioneered the importance of understanding cultural dimensions in an increasingly multicultural world, especially in business.
- Understanding and respecting cultural norms (e.g. Shaking hands = deal closed in US, but
= deal open in Middle East) very important to smooth communications.
Surveys allowed him:
- Conduct resource efficient research
o While interviews may allow for more in depth discussion, are much less time
efficient. It wouldn’t have been possible for Hoefstede to take employees out
of their work schedules.
- To gather massive amounts of data across a wide variety of participants.
- As with most surveys, he used an opportunity sample which lends itself to both of
the both.
- It is worth considering that this research doesn’t describe any causal relationship
between culture and behavior, but instead describes an existing cultural
phenomenon.
- Thus, while it leaves the relationship between culture and behavior open to
directional ambiguity it did allow Hoefstede to describe an observed relationship.
- Hoefstede didn’t use an experiment because he wasn’t looking to establish causality.
Instead his aim was to answer an open-ended question about the dynamics and
-
moral of workers in the workplace –with few specific characteristics of these
dynamics in mind.
The rich data acquired from this largely qualitative technique gave him the liberty to
explore these dynamics, developing theories as he compared responses of
participants.
Cialdini et al. (1975): Studied the foot-in-the-door compliance technique.
Survey procedure: Researchers posed as representatives of the “County Youth Counseling
Program” and stopped university students to ask them questions.
 First data-collection session they asked: “Would you be willing to chaperone a group of
juvenile delinquents on a trip to the zoo?”
 Result: 83% of them declined.
 Second data-collection session: stopped students and asked first “Would you be willing
to sign up to work for two hours per week as counselors for a minimum of two years?”
 Result: No one agreed to volunteer.
 Then subsequently: “Would you be willing to sign up to work for two hours per week as
counselors for a minimum of two years?”
 Result: 50% of students agreed.
 Conclusion: This clearly indicates the power of the door-in-the-face technique, especially
given that the students weren’t obliged to make any commitments.
Surveys allowed them to:
- In contrast to Hoefstede, Cialdini et al. (1975) were trying to establish a causal
relationship between the foot-in-the-door compliance technique and an increase in
compliance.
o Surveys allowed them to change an independent variable (order of the
questions), while conducting the experiment in a natural environment: this
gives it a unique level of ecological validity.
- Like Hoefstede, Cialidini et al. (1975) used an opportunity sample; while in this case
the opportunity sample of only students makes the results hard to generalize (given
that they are not a representative sample), it also added to the ecological validity for
the aim of the research given that compliance techniques and surveys are both used
in those situations.
- This ecological suitability of the technique for the aim of the study also uniquely
allowed for the research to bypass the typical weaknesses of techniques from the
area of critical social psychology such as: a lack of control of variables, bi-directional
ambiguity due to a correlation approach.
- This study exemplifies a holistic approach to research methodology and is uniquely
strong in that respect.
Harlow and Harlow (1962): Examined attachment theory through experimental animal
research. (this connects to situational and dispositional factors in behavior – attachment
appears to be a innate dispositional drive)
Procedure: Researchers grew monkeys in a cage with a wire mesh cylinder as a maternal
figure.
 One group – wire mesh figure was left bare but had a teat to provide milk; second group
– no teat but covered with a warm fabric.
 Results: The monkeys with the fabric figure showed characteristics of attachment such
as huddling with the figure, using it as a base for safe exploration and jumping on the
figure when scared. This was not the case with the wire-mesh figures.
 However, this was not sufficient for normal social development as the monkeys with the
covered wire mesh still had problems socializing, mating and raising children.
 This was concluded to be due to a lack of a responsive figure as monkeys who were
raised alone, without the presence of any mother figure, but together grew up to have
normal social functions
What the experiment allowed them to do:
- Keep variables variables in a highly controlled environment – reducing the influence
of extraneous variables that may obscure the relationship between
- Causal relationship between variables – no bidirectional ambiguity.
- Therefore, a greater certainty of results.
- Worth considering however that the artificial laboratory environment decreases the
ecological validity of the results.
CONCLUSION:
It is clear that each research method has its individual strengths and weaknesses. These
strengths and weaknesses can be generalized. Most of the qualitative research methods are
susceptible to problems of extraneous variables and most non-experimental methods are
constrained by bidirectional ambiguity in the relationships they propose. The reasons some
methods are used as opposed to others, therefore, is sometimes related to the relative
importance an individual researcher places on the weakness or strength of his method.
This split is visible in CRITICAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS VS. EXPERIMENTAL
PSYCHOLGOGISTS
Studies like Cialdini et al. however, speak to the importance of the characteristics of the
method matching those of the aim of the experiment.