Integrating Cross-Cultural
and Social Psychology
What are the key differences between the
work done by Social Psychologists and
Sociologists?
Both examine specific factors that
contribute to behavioral and group
phenomena.

It could be argued that sociology is largely a
qualitative field of study (observation, focus
groups, interviews), while social psych is mostly
quantitative (applied experiments with statistical
analysis).
 But the real difference may much more subtle yet
highly significant.
 We can attempt to draw distinction on the nature
of the theoretical questions posed, but we would
just be splitting hairs.
 In fact, there’s sharing theoretically; Sociologists
cite Social Psychology theories and vise versa.
The major difference is to be found in “go to”
research methods.
 Experiments continued to be the “gold standard”
for Social Psychologists.
 According to psychologist Gordon Allport, social
psychology is a discipline that uses scientific
methods (experiments) "to understand and
explain how the thought, feeling and behavior of
individuals are influenced by the actual,
imagined or implied presence of other human
beings" (1985).


Most sociologists employ non-experimental
methods to look at social behavior and
influences at a very broad-based level.
Sociologists are interested in the institutions and
cultures that influence how people behave.
 Psychologists instead focus on situational
variables that affect social behavior.
 Hence, while social psychology and sociology
both study similar topics, they are looking at
these topics from different perspectives and
using different methods.
What About Cross-Cultural Psychology?
 Cross-Cultural psychology can be the link, not
just with sociology but with social science
generally.
 My own contention is that cross-cultural
psychology can act as a culture broker to help
bring social psychology in contact with social
science and the psychologies of other societies.

North American social psychology and Michael
Doonesbury have much in common: they are
white, middle class, educated, idealistic (but
practical), likable, interesting. They are also
naive, culturally pristine, politically ineffectual,
and out of touch with social processes that are
bigger than themselves.
 They seem to inhabit a charmed world that only
occasionally intersects with the many other
worlds on this planet. Their responses to these
intersections, rare as they may be, are
predictably disconcerting.
Research Demonstrations

My own early work support the need for crosscultural studies with ethnic subgroups as an
effective way of challenging the assumed
universality of social psychology theories.
 In a study published in 1977 we demonstrated
that generally accepted casual attributions
theories are valid only for mainstream American
populations, but fall apart when applied to ethnic
minority populations.
 But this study was not a true experiment and
published in the J Cross-Cultural Psychology, not
a top tier journal at the time.
In Search of the Right Study

What we needed was a study that addressed
cultural concerns while employing traditional
experimental methodology.
 The brainchild was reactions to praise and
criticism as a function of ethnic background
(culture) and locus of control (personality).
 Previous research had examined nonverbal
feedback such as the illumination of the words
“right” or “wrong”.
 We wanted to employ verbal feedback in an
experimental setting.

Previous research dealing with reactions to
positive versus negative feedback had virtually
ignored socio-cultural factors and not fully
considered the interactive effects of personality
constructs such as locus of control.
 Our study was designed to investigate reactions
to praise and criticism among members of two
ethnic groups who were either “internal” or
“externa” in their perceptions of locus of control.
Method

Subjects were recruited to take part in a
“Problem Solving” experiment.
 Subjects first completed the locus of control
scale (Rotter, 1966), “ a short personality test
that may be related to performance on the
problem solving task”,
 On a large table located on the other side of the
experimental room were various games, dice,
and playing cards creating the distinct
impression that we were investigating different
forms of problem solving.
Method (cont.)





Once the subjects completed the locus of control
scale, the experimenter consulted his notes and
informed all subjects that they had been assigned
to work on “the wooden block puzzle”.
Tested individually, subjects were shown a
completed puzzle along with one that was apart.
They were told that all the pieces were there to put
together the puzzle.
Subjects were given exactly two minutes to work on
the puzzle.
Pilot-testing had shown that the puzzle could not be
completed within the allotted time.
Method (cont.)

Subjects were stopped after two minutes and told
that our study was not about completing the puzzle,
but about the problem solving strategies that were
being used.

After pausing and looking at notes he had been
taking while the subject was working on the puzzle,
the Experimenter said, “I’ve been taking notes and
can let you know how you did, if you like”.

All subjects wanted the feedback.

Based on random assignment, subjects were given
one of the following two feedback conditions.
Praise
“ You did very well. You
demonstrated a great deal of
insight. Your problem-solving
strategies reflect a great deal of
complexity in your thinking. You
did very well.”
Criticism
“ You didn’t do very well. You
demonstrated very little insight.
Your problem-solving strategies
reflect very little complexity in
your thinking. You didn’t do very
well.”
Dependent Measure

From the subjects’ perspective, the Study ended
with the feedback, but we needed to collect data
on their reactions.

Using the “Oh, by the way” method, the
Experimenter handed the subjects a copy of a
“Psychology Experiment Evaluation Form” just as
they attempted to get up from the chair.

Subjects were asked to complete the form in an
adjacent room and to turn it to the Psychology
Department office.

Upon turning the completed form, subjects were
given an envelope containing a letter explaining
the true purpose of the experiment.

The debriefing materials made it absolutely clear
to the subjects that the feedback they received
was completely arbitrary and not reflective of
their true performance and capabilities.

What did we find?