Studies for Chapter 4: Sociocultural level of analysis
4. 1 Sociocultural cognition
 O’Reilly (2000) Studied British expatriates on the Costa del Sol, were happier than expected (P.
102)
 Festinger et al (1956) Religious cult and Prophecy failure; attributed to prayer by group(p. 103)
 Lee et al (1977) Fundamental attribution error with students and a game show. Hosts were seen
as smarter (p. 105)
 Miller and Ross (1975) Internal success, external failure (p. 105)
 Kashima and Triandis (1986) American success attributes to ability, Japanese failure attributes
to lack of ability (p. 106)
o Chandler (1990) Bias in Japanese students. (p. 106)
o Watkins and Regmi (1990) bias in Nepalese students. (p. 106)
o Bond, Leung, and Wan (1982) Chinese students with modesty bias = popularity among
peers. (p. 106)
 Cialdini et al (1976) College football supporters wear more insignia about school with victory (p.
106)
 Tajfel et al (1971) Boys assigned to random group of Kandinsky or Klee and the boys related
better to students in their group. (p. 107)
 Moscovici (1973) Social representations are shared beliefs among those we associate with.
 Howarth (2002) Interviewed people of Brixton in London. Negative social representation outside
of the area, but positive with the area. (p. 107)
 Steele and Aronson (1995)students under spotlight anxiety which can cause poor performance
(p. 108)
o Spencer et al (1977) gave math tests to strong math performers and predicted poor
female scores and results were attributed to stereotype. (p. 108-109)
 Hamilton and Glifford (1976) Stereotypes are the result of illusory correlation. (p. 109)
 Snyder and Swann (1978) Introverted vs. extroverted students. Participants asked skewed
questions to confirm their perceptions. (p. 109)
 Rogers and Frantz (1962) White immigrants to Zimbabwe developed more stereotypes over
time. (p. 110)
4. 2 Social and cultural norms
 Bandura et al. (1961) Aggression in boys and girls after watching aggressive models on a Bobo
doll. (p. 112-113) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHdovKHDNU&feature=related
 Huesmann and Eron (1986) Positive correlation between the number of hours elementary
students watched violence on tv and aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers. (p.
113-114)
 Yarrow et al (1970) Children learn altruistic behavior better from people whom they already
have friendly relationships.
















Lynn and McCall (1998) restaurant customers give a larger tip when given a mint or sweet (p.
117)
Kimball and Zabrack (1986) Children were found to be more aggressive after watching 2 years of
violent tv in Canada. (p. 114)
Cialdini et al (1975) Participating for chaperoning students to the zoo increased when asked to
volunteer 2 hours a week first. (p. 117)
Lewin (1951) Behavior is motivated by grade gradients; the longer people commit to something,
the less likely they are to abandon it. (p. 118)
Dickerson et al (1992) Had students sign a poster and take a survey to conserve water in dorm
showers. Students who signed took a significantly less timed shower. (p. 118)
Cialdini et al (1974) used low-balling to get students to commit to an early study which
increased numbers of participants rather than giving a specific early time. (p. 118)
Young (1963) Of 54 tribes, those with the most dramatic and stringent ceremonies had the
greatest group solidarity. (p. 119)
Aronson and Mills (1959) Experimented to see if enduring pain or trouble to enter a group
made participants value the group more. (p. 119)
Asch (1951) Wanted to find out the extent people conform using an experiment on line size and
utilized confederates (a role unknown to the participants.) (p. 120)
o Asch (1955) there was an increase in conformity from 1 to 3 confederates, but no
increase with large groups. (p. 120)
o Asch (1956) Conformity was most likely when all confederates agreed. (p. 120)
o Perrin and Spencer (1988) Replicated Asch’s study with engineers and medical students
where there was almost no conformity. (p. 121)
o Stang (1973) Those with high self-esteem were less likely to conform to incorrect
responses. (p. 121)
o Friend et al (1990) There is a bias in interpretation in the findings.
Moscovici and Lage (1976) Experiment on colors viewed; a minority with consistent views can
influence the majority. (p. 121)
o Hogg and Vaughan(1995) Uncertainty and doubt, existence of alternatives, and
consistency is how minority groups can influence the majority. (p. 121)
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) conformity is a result of informational and normative social
influence. (p. 122)
Festinger (1954) people evaluate their own opinions with social comparison and develop
anxiety when others do not believe in the same way known as cognitive dissonance. (p. 123)
Cashmore and Goodnow (1986) There is a high level of conformity among Italians.(p. 123)
Burgos and Dias-Perez (1986) Puerto Ricans value conformity and obedience in children.(p. 123)
Smith and Bond (1993) Conformity was lower among participants from individualist cultures
than from collectivist cultures. (p. 123)
Berry (1967) Temne people of Sierra Leone conformed significantly more than the Inuit people
of Canada. (p. 123)










Matsumoto (2004) according to a book in 1998, there were 128 different definitions of culture.
(p. 124)
Kuschel (2004) Culture cannot be seen, but we can see the manifestations of culture and should
not be used to explain behavior. (p. 124)
Lonner (1995) culture is common rules that regulate interactions and behavior as well as shared
values and attitudes in a group. (p. 124)
Hofstede (2002) Culture is “mental software” or internalized schemas that influence thinking,
emotions and behavior. (p. 124)
Mead (1935) documented cultural variations in gender with three different cultures in New
Guinea. (p. 125)
Matsumoto (2004) Culture is “a dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by
groups in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and
behaviours.” (p. 125)
Hoefstede’s (1973) Survey on morale in the workplace of IBM in a multinational study. (p. 125 –
126)
Markus and Kitayama (1991) differences between US and Japanese cultures “In the US, The
squeaky wheel gets the grease; in Japan, the nail that stands out gets pounded down.”
Bond (1988) argues Chinese culture replaces uncertainty-avoidance with Confucian work
dynamism. The culture values persistence, loyalty, and trustworthiness. (p. 126)
Hall (1966) In different cultures, there is a need for personal space more so than in others
(proxemic theory) (p. 127)
4.3 An integrative approach to prejudice and discrimination
 Hart (2000) White and black participants were given brief subliminal glimpses of faces of
individuals from other ethnic groups and both showed activity in the amygdala.(p. 128)
o Phelps (2000) Found a strong coloration between those whose amygdale was strongly
activated and scores on standardized tests for ethnic prejudice. (p. 128)
 Banaji and Greenwald (1998) developed a test that associates good and bad with young and old.
(p. 128-129)
 Fiske (2007) Had participants in an MRI scanner and shown a series of photos that included
people with disabilities, rich businessmen, older people, US Olympic athletes, and homeless
people. (p. 129)
 Bettelheim and Janowitz (1994) One’s stereotypes do not predict feelings of prejudice or acts of
discrimination. (p. 130)
 Cunningham (2004) Longer exposure to images causes activity in the amygdala and also the
frontal lobe. (p. 130)
 Allport (1954) Hostility is the key emotional component of prejudice.(p. 130)
 Tversky and Kahnemann (1982) People make judgements based on the availability heuristic (or
most readily available information.) (p. 130)
 Fiske and Taylor (1991) People have a limited capacity for social information, and therefore, use
shortcuts (“cognitive miser”) (p. 131)









Darley and Gross (1983) showed participants a video of a two girls; one depicted as middle class
and one as lower class. (p. 131)
Tedeschi and Rosenfield (1981) attitude change is developed to avoid social anxiety and
embarrassment and protect a positive view of one’s self (Impression management theory) (p.
132)
o Devine (1989) A self depicted low prejudice person immediately react sto cultural norms
when in contact with stereotyped groups. (p. 132)
Elliott (1960’s) “blue eyed/brown eyed” study where one group was told to be superior, more
talented, and better looking than the other. (p. 132)
Sherif (1961) Robers’ Cave experiment where two groups of similar children were chosen
randomly, reformed, then eventually developed a superordinate goal. (p. 133-134)
Allport (1956) “It has sometimes been held that merely by assembling people without regard for
race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly
attitudes.” (p. 134)
Amir (2000) Prejudice is strengthened or increased if contact between two groups produces
competition and is unpleasant. (p. 134)
Pettigrew and Tropp (2000, 2003) meta-analysis of 516 empirical studies and found an inverse
relationship between contact and prejudice. (p. 134)
Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) University students’ attitudes about gays and lesbians were
influenced on their proximity to those groups. (p. 134)
Ma’oz (2002) Israeli and Palestinian students brought together had equal status contact only 65
per cent of the time or less. (p. 134)