Sociocultural level of analysis
Outline principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis
(for example, the social and cultural environment influences
individual behaviour; we want connectedness with, and a sense
of belonging to, others; we construct our conceptions of the
individual and social self)
Explain how principles that define the sociocultural level of
analysis may be demonstrated in research (that is, theories
and/or studies)
§The social and cultural environment influences the individual´s behavior
Name and year of study
Aim
Research method
Procedure
Yuki et al (2005)
To determine if people automatically categorized themselves
and favor in their groups across cultures. The experiment was
to compare U.S. and Japanese university student in three
scenarios.
Two laboratory experiments were done
Experiment 1:
Subjects were 171 male and female from Ohio State
University, 171 male and female from Hokkaido University
students and 28 male and female Hokkaido Education
University students. Three scenarios were used: first, someone
is from an in-group; second, someone is from out-group with
potential (no actual) connection between the out-group
members through the participants’ acquaintance; third,
someone is from out-group that suggested with no potential
connection. The questionnaires were given to participants
about asking someone to watch luggage in an airport, allowing
someone to borrow money at a restaurant, and buying concert
tickets online from an individuals. Later they were told to
decide which person you would trust from any of the scenarios
defined above.
Experiment 2:
It replicated the first experiment, except it used a real money
allocation game to test trust in risky situation where
participants were told they would receive money based on their
decisions to trust unknown others. The aim of the experiment
is to test the differences in trusting in-groups and out-groups
because people value in-groups and make distinctions between
in-group and out-group. Subjects were 146 male and female
students from Ohio State University, and 122 male and female
Findings
Conclusion
Methodological strength
students from Hokkaido University. Three scenarios were the
same was the experiment #1 (in-group members, out-group
members with potential connections and out-group members
with no connections). No rules were made to indicating the
amount was to be allocated to any person and allcator (who
received the money) decides how much money to keep and
how much money to give to the recipient (received the money).
Before the experiment, participants were told that they were
part of a real-time online money allocation game and the
computer would randomly assign the role of allocator or
recipient. In real, the computers were never connected and the
real participants were always assigned to be the recipient. They
had to decide whether to trust the other unknown person or not
in each of the three scenarios (dependent variables). During the
experiment, participants were given two choices; first, either
accepts a smaller amount of money 3 U.S dollars or 400 yen
for sure, second, to allow the other person to allocate the larger
amount as desired. And three trials were done for each
condition. At the end of the experiment, then participants were
debriefed the true nature of the experiment. And participants
were filled out a questionnaire about their identification with
the in-group. This would allow the researchers to correlate trust
with being a U.S or Japanese participants.
Experiment 1:
The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the
unknown person from the in-group more than they trusted
either out-group person. In addition, the Japanese sample was
more likely to trust the out-group member with potential
connection. In contrast, the U.S. sample did not trust either
out-group member, even if the person had a potential
connection.
Experiment 2:
The results showed that U.S students trusted the in-group far
more than either type of out-groups. No significant difference
between both out-groups. In contrast, Japanese students trusted
the in-group and out-group with potential connection. A
significant difference was found between trusting the potential
connected and the unconnected out-group.
Yuki suggested that participants had different reason for
trusting groups because of their cultures and different views.
U.S participants had greater identification with an in-group that
strongly correlated with their likelihood to trust someone. In
contrast, Japanese identification with a group was correlated
with the extent to which they felt an indirect connection with a
depersonalized group. These correlations are consistent with
the theory that East Asians are more likely to make judgments
about groups based on relational needs and Americans are
more likely to make judgments about depersonalized groups
based on categories.
The experiment was well controlled and standardized.
Methodological weakness
Ethical considerations
High generalisability to other cultures.
Interpretation bias
Students were later informed the true nature of the experiment
§We want a connectedness and a sense of belonging to other people (social
identity theory)
- Our social identity, a part of our identity is derived from the social groups that we
belong to and that we do not belong to (Defining who we are by who we aren’t)
- We derive self esteem by positively differentiating our in-group from out-groups
- We therefore tend to categorize our social environment into groups
- We tend to favourize our in-group over out-groups
Tajfel et al (1971)
Name and year of study
To demonstrate that merely putting people in to groups
Aim
(categorization) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor
of their own group and against members of the others.
Two laboratory experiments were done
Research method
Experiment 1:
Procedure
Subjects were 64 schoolboys of fourteen and fifteen years old.
All subjects took part in a visual test, involving estimating the
number of dots on a screen. The boys were informed that they
would be divided into groups such as “over-estimators” or
“under-estimators” according to the results of visual test. In
fact, they were randomly grouped. Later participants were
asked to do a task where they had to allocate reward and
penalty points to other boys, both in-group and out-group.
Each boy was tested in isolation. The boys were told that they
cannot allocate points to themselves and would not know the
identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning
these rewards and penalties since everyone would be given to a
number code. During the test location, each boy received a
booklet, which showed how they can allocate points to other
boys. There were three different choices (in-group and ingroup, out-group and out-group, in-group and out-group).
Experiment 2:
48 boys of fourteen and fifteen years old were used as subjects
and all the subjects knew each other. The boys were shown
slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, which
were shown without the painter’s signature and were asked to
express their preferences. Later subjects were again randomly
divided into two groups, supposedly based upon their
performances for the paintings. In this experiment, matrices
were employed which allowed the experimenters to investigate
three variables. The three variables were: maximum joint
profit – where boys could give the largest reward to members
of both groups, largest possible reward to in-group – where
the boys could choose the largest reward for the member
within their group regardless of the reward to the boy from
other group, maximum difference – where boys could choose
the largest possible difference in reward between members of
Findings
Conclusion
Methodological strength
Methodological weakness
Ethical considerations
the different groups (in favour of the in-group). Maximum joint
profit and giving the largest reward to the in-group would both
achieved by choosing the last pair in the row, giving 19 to a
member of your own group and 25 to a member of the other
group. However, to maximize your own rewards while
also maximizing the difference, you might well choose one of
the middle boxes and give 12 to a member of your own group
and 11 to a member of the other group.
Experiment 1:
The results showed that within the same groups, fairness was
displayed. When points had to be allocated to members of two
different groups at the same time, boys tend to give more
points to the boy in their group.
Experiment 2:
The results were boys choose maximum difference in favorism
of the in-group. Boys were decided not to give maximum
points within their group but only if it’s higher than the other
group. This clearly shows that the participants were favor
within their in-groups.
Randomly categorizing boys into meaningless groups, in-group
bias and out-group discrimination was shown. This means that
bias and discrimination against the out-group comes
automatically in any group situation without any competition
or hostility but simply from categorization. Lastly, the results
also show that the process of categorization oneself into a
group gives a distinct meaning to the individual’s behavior,
therefore creating a positive valued social identity.
Good experimental controls
Lacks ecological validity
Contains demand characteristics
Possible interpretation bias
Students were later inform the true nature of the experiment
Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at
the sociocultural level of analysis (for example,
participant/naturalistic observation, interviews, case studies)
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
- An experiment is an exploration of a certain phenomenon in such a way that the
independent variables are manipulated by the experimenter and consequently give rise
to the dependent variables
- The experiment relies on controlling certain variables, and the manipulation of other
variables to test and support a hypothesis.
-It involves a clear relationship between the independent and dependent variable.
-Includes naturalistic observations, field experiments, and lab experiments.
PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION
- A participant observation is a type of research method, where the participant is
monitored as they are participating in a particular activity, group, etc.
- This method may involve the researcher merely overlooking the participants, or
even getting involved with the participant to a certain degree.
- Basically, the researcher is trying to find out what it is like to be the participant (the
insider) while remaining the outsider.
How they are used
Participant Observation
Festinger, Riecken and Schacter’s 1956 study was illustrated by a participant
observation aimed to observe a member of a particular religious cult to support the
Cognitive Dissonance Theory which involves uncomfortable feelings when holding
two contradictory ideas simultaneously. In the 1950s, at that time, there had been a
report on a religious cult that claimed to be receiving messages from outer space, with
the belief that the world was to end in a great flood, but members of the cult would be
rescued in an UFO. The researchers took the opportunity to observe and overlook
their behaviors. As part of the research, the researchers themselves had infiltrated the
cult and observed their behaviors among the members of the cult. As the prophecy
was still widely accepted among the group members, the members actively promoted
this prophecy and in extreme cases, sold their houses and resigned from their jobs to
prepare for Doom’s Day. The researchers wanted to see the member’s reactions had
the prophecy not come true. When Doom’s Day for the members never came, more
and more people left the cult. They found other explanations for why the day never
came, such as praying enough that their city had been saved. This proved the
Cognitive Dissonance Theory right, because it predicted that the members would
change their thinking or behavior when there was no dissonance between the
cognitions.
Experiment
Tajfel et al’s study which was aimed to describe and identify one of the three
elements: categorization. Furthermore, the study proposed to portray how this
categorization will eventually lead to discrimination in favor of our in-group. The
Tajfel et. Al study was made up of 64 male students aged from 14-15 and was divided
into two experiements. The first experiment initially began by conducting a
procedure which aimed to categorize these 64 subjects. The boys entered the
experiment in groups of 8 where each of these groups consisted of students who were
a part of the same school “house”, thus implying that they knew each other fairly
well. All the 64 boys were brought into a lecture room and were briefed by the
experimenters who claimed that they were testing the visual judgements of the
boys. In order to determine the boys’ supposed “visual judgement”, the
experimenters flashed forty clusters of dots on a projected screen and asked the boys
to estimate and record on their score sheets, how many dots were in each cluster. At
this point of the first experiment, the real categorization begins. After finishing the
test, half of the boys were to be told that they were either a part of a group who
overestimated or underestimated the amount of dots and the other half were to be told
that within this group, some boys were accurate in their estimation while others
weren’t. Not long after the test, the judgements were made and the experimenter,
randomly distributed half of the boys to the first condition and the other half to the
second condition. Following the random distribution, the subjects, according to their
group, were brought into two different rooms. They were given a set of matrices
which aimed to fulfill the task of rewarding and penalizing members, which were
represented by code numbers rather than names, that were a part of his group and
members that weren’t. The rewards and penalizations in this case, were in the form of
pennies such that one point would be equivalent to one tenth of a penny. Within this
set of matrices, the boys were required to make three types of choices and choose
accordingly in the matrices given: the first choice consisted of the matrix where both
the bottom and top row referred to members of the group the subject was in, the
second choice consisted of the matrix where both the bottom and top row referred to
members of the group the subject was not a part of and the third choice consisted of a
matrix where the top row referred to a member of the subject’s group and the bottom
row referred to a member that was not part of the subject’s group.
Why they are used
Experiment(Tajfel et. al)
- Experiments are the most efficient among the research methods, did not use
interviews and thus, results may not have been too subjective but rather come from an
instinctive response from the participant.
- used in order to find out cause and effect of social behavior. To isolate the
independent variables while controlling for other variables. The control of variables
and the laboratory may however reduce the ecological validity
Participant Observation( Festinger, Riecken and Schacter)
- Participant observations are used to gain insight into a deeper level of understanding
contexts, relationships, and behaviors of a group of people. In the study, this method
was used to survey the behaviors of the participants as they were in a particular cult
and had a strong belief about something, and also how they altered their thinking after
two conflicting ideas have come to consensus in their minds.
- used in order to study natural behaviour (reduce something called the Hawthorne
effect) [People change their behavior when they are being observed]
- increase ecological validity. This however is less ethical (use of deception)
Evaluate the research methods
Participant Observation –
Participant observations are involve qualitative data since it is based on a real life
situation that involves an actual event, rather than a stimulation of an event like an
experiment. However, they can be rather time-consuming, since it involves observing
the participants thinking, behavior, and so on, so it is not so practical. Also, this
method may also involve quite a bit of researcher bias, since the whole thing is based
on the researcher’s observations. It also lacks validity, because there are many
external, uncontrolled factors, that may have influenced certain behaviors.
Nevertheless, participant observations can be useful in gaining insight to deeper
matters such as contexts, relationships, and behaviors.
Experiment –
Experimenting is a widely used research method in psychology which involves
stimulating an event to find out people’s reactions to certain situations. It clearly
defines a link between the independent and dependent variable. Because it is set up,
rather than happening in real life, this method lacks ecological validity. Experiments
have high replicability, and are well controlled, since the variables are manipulated by
the researcher. This in turn causes it to also be somewhat biased. Nevertheless,
experiments are still a widely used research method because although the study might
occur in a lab, to a certain extent, they can be applied to the real world.
Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the
sociocultural level of analysis
1. Use of deception
-When the participant is deceived of the true aims of a study
-Sometimes necessary because otherwise participants might alter behaviour
to fit the experimenters´ expectations
-There should be strong scientific or medical justification
-Costs should be weighed against benefits
Possible effects:
-Deception prevents participants to give informed consent. Participants might
not want to participate in the future. However, informed consent may
decrease ecological validity because when people know they are being
watched, they do not act naturally.
-Participants may feel embarrassed or have lowered self esteem
-Use of deception may increase ecological validity: When participants don't
know they are being watched, the conditions are more realistic, and they
behave more naturally.
Studies:
Milgram (1963)
The aim of the Milgram study was to measure the extent to which
participants would readily submit to authoritative figures who require them,
upon instruction, to perform an act that causes disagreement with their own
consciences. The method used to acquire data was through a laboratory
experiment. There were three main roles, which consisted of the
experimenter, the learner, and the teacher. The participants, who were told
that this experiment was part of a learning experiment, drew from pieces of
paper that would determine what their roles were; however, the experiments
made sure that the participants were always the teachers. The learner, who
was played by an actor, was placed into a separate room, while the
experimenter sat in the same room as the participant and played the role of
the authoritative figure. The teacher, or the participant, was given a test shock
so they had an idea of the ‘shocks’ that the learner was supposed to receive.
The participants were asked to read a list of words to the learner, and the
learner would then press a button to specify his response; if the answer was
wrong, the teacher would deliver shocks to the learner – with each wrong
answer being an increase of 15 voltages to the shocks delivered. During the
experiment, the participants were deceived into believing that the learner was
receiving real shocks due to the pre-recorded screams emitted for each
number of voltage increase; however, in actuality, no shocks were ever
delivered. As the number of voltages delivered rose, banging on the wall was
heard and was ensued by total silence where the participants were led to
believe the learner had fainted. The findings of this experiment were that the
number of people who administered the maximum voltage was a much higher
amount than polled before the experiment (which was 1.2%); however, the
experiment revealed that around 2/3 of the participants delivered a striking
450 volts to the ‘learner’. Though some participants were uneasy about
continuing the experiment, when they were pressured into doing so, they
continued administering higher voltages of shocks than they would have
imagined doing.
Use of deception:
1. Participants were told the main aim was to investigate effects of
punishment on learning.
-Necessary because if participants had known they were
being observed by obedience, they would either deliberately obey less
or, less likely, unconsciously alter behavior to fit experimenters’
expectations by obeying more.
2. Participants were told that they were giving real shocks to the
“learner” when it was a set-up.
-Necessary because if participants had known the
“learner” didn’t receive shocks, the aim, which tests how much they were
willing to inflict pain on others when under authority, wouldn’t be
accomplished.
-Participants suffered psychological distress: sweat,
tremble, stutter, etc. and on one occasion, a violent fit. To return them into
their original psychological
state, they were debriefed.
Steele & Aronson (1995)
The aim of this experiment was to see the effect of stereotypes on the
performance of people. The method used to acquire data for this experiment
was through a laboratory experiment. The experimenters gave out a difficult
verbal test consisting of multiple choice questions that lasted for 30 minutes.
These tests were given to a group of participants consisting of African and
European Americans. A group was told that it was a test of their verbal
abilities. Another group of a similar composition was given the same test, but
they were told that it was a laboratory task that was used to study how certain
problems are generally solved. The findings of this experiment were that, in
the first group, the African American participants scored lower than their
European American counterparts. However, the 2nd group scored higher than
the previous group, with the African American scores equaling that of the
European Americans. The experimenters found that the other studies
conducted on female participants and participants of lower social class, the
results were similar to the first experiment. Steele and Aronson then
subsequently concluded that the effects of stereotype threat can be found
affecting anyone of any social class or race –if, and only on the condition, the
people believe within the stereotype itself.
Use of deception:
1. First round: participants were told the aim was to test verbal
ability.
-Necessary as to observe whether existing stereotypes
(African Americans are worse in English compared to European Americans)
can influence
performance.
-Acts as independent variable (stereotype present)
2. Second round: participants were told the aim was to observe how
certain problems are generally solved.
-Necessary as to observe performance when no
stereotypes are present.
-Acts as control (no stereotype present)
2. Protection from harm
Avoid any situation that may cause a participant to experience
psychological or physical damage
Study:
The aim of the Stanford Prison Experiment was to study the psychological effects a
prison environment would have on prisoners. Dr. Philip Zimbardo rounded up
participants who were mentally, and physically, healthy to become prisoners for this
experiment. Their selected participants were 21 white, middle-class males who told
that they would take part in a two week prison simulation experiment. The
participants, who were selected to become prisoners, were brought into the makeshift
prison, which was located in an underground basement of a building in Stanford, and
were forced to wear prisoner attire; the participants, who were selected to become
guards, had their guard uniforms, sunglasses, and night sticks handed to them. The
‘prisoners’ were each assigned a number instead of their names, and they had a chain
around their feet –constant reminders of their positions within the prison setting.
During the experiment, the researchers told the ‘guards’ that they could create
sentiments of boredom, fear, and obedience within the prisoners – all traits that would
lead to a feeling of weakness and subjection. At the introduction of the experiment,
the ‘guards’ were met with various acts of disobedience and rebellion; however, as the
experiment wore on, each prisoner began to submit to the guard’s authority as they
suffered from public humiliation and constant stress. The guards would dispense
punishment upon prisoners who were particularly stubborn by isolating them in
solitary confinement for up to hours, even days, in hopes of breaking them. It soon
became apparent that bad behaviour was severely punished as the guards revoked the
prisoner’s privileges such as meals; however, good behaviour did not do much good
either as the guards taunted the prisoners for being too obedient. Events such as being
able to use the bathroom soon became an incentive as the prisoners suffered from
constant psychological torture. The findings of the abruptly terminated experiment,
after a period of 6 days, were that the prisoners had completely submitted to total
obedience and were extremely compliant to whatever the guards ordered; the
prisoners themselves even forgot, at one point during the experiment, their names as
they introduced themselves as their assigned numbers - indicating that they had
completely slipped into character. The guards, too, had assumed the role of their
character and were abusive with their authority. The participants of this experiment
had become completely absorbed with their role-playing that they had forgotten that
who they were, initially, and that they were not prisoners or guards.
Protection from harm:
1.
At first the participants signed agreement saying that they
understood that they were giving up some of their civil rights.
2.
The experiment in the prison proved to be so realistic and
brutal due to abuse from the prison guards, that the experiment
had to be stopped after 6 days.
3.
The participants began to break down mentally,
experiencing symptoms ranging from crying, depression, etc.
4.
These measures taken during the experiment produced
unexpected results, which effectively proved the experiments
point.
Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in
explaining behaviour

Dispositional Factors: Factors such as personality, schemas, genes, and
hormones occurring inside the individual which can then affect the
individual's behaviour
 Situational Factors: Behaviour is affected by the situation the person is in
o Dispositional Factors was explored by Crutchfield's conforming
personality theory (1955)

Aim: to see the influences of a stronger personality against the
weaker personality

Procedure: He gave his test subjects a number of their
personality, types of I.Q tests in order to differentiate the
difference of their personality.

Findings: subjects who conformed towards the
experimental situations were
 l. less inteclectually competent - more open to
expert power of others
 2. had less ego - less confident in their own
opinion
 3. had less leadership - less able to assert their
own opinion
 4. more narrow minded - inclining to stick with
the majority answer

Conclusion: The weaker personality has a high tendency in
conforming towards the stronger personality.

Situational Factors are explained through many studies, one
being Zimbardo's Standford's Prison Experiment
 Standford Prison Experiment--Quiet Rage

Aim: To see the effect of situational and external factors
on the behavior of young college boys
 Procedure:
1. Psychologically fit, healthy, and young male
volunteers were called in
2. Half were randomly chosen as prisoners and the
other half as gaurds
3. The next day life-like arrests took place and the
volunteer prisoners had to go through all the
procedures during an arrest (e.g. mug shots,
finger prints, degrading uniforms)
4. The gaurds were given costumes and sticks and
sunglasses to accompany the costume.
5. The guards were asked to treat the prisoners as
real criminals and the prisoners were made to
do degrading acts
6. After instances of emotional breakdowns, the
experiment was called to a stop
 Findings:
 The costume gave the gaurds both the feeling of
authority and anonymity and therefore were
able to forget who they really were.
 The prisoners had forgotten who they were
(forgot their names and instead referred to
themselves as numbers that they had been
given)
 Conclusion:
 External factors, pressures, and roles can clearly
determine the behavior of an individual
Discuss two errors in attribution (for example, fundamental
attribution error, illusory correlation, self serving bias)
Fundamental Attribution Error
Definition:
To make internal (dispositional) attributions for others’ behavior rather than external
(situational) ones (even when there may be equally convincing evidence for both
types of cause).
Studies:
Jones and Harris (1967): Jones and Harris hypothesized that people were more likely
to attribute freely chosen behaviors to disposition, and chance-directed behaviors to
situation. This hypothesis was proven wrong by the fundamental attribution error.
Researchers had participants read pro- and anti-Fidel Castro essays. Then, they were
asked to rate the attitudes of the writers who wrote pro-Castro essays. When
participants were told that writers freely chose the positions they took (for or against
Castro), they rated the writers of the pro-Castro essays as having positive attitudes
toward Castro. However, contradicting Jones and Harris' initial hypothesis, when the
subjects were told that the writer's positions were determined by chance, they still
rated writers who spoke in favor of Castro as having a more positive attitude towards
him. In other words, the subjects were unable to see the influence of the situational
constraints placed upon the writers; they could not refrain from attributing sincere
belief to the writers.
Lee et. al. (1977): University students were randomly allocated to one of three roles: a
game show host, contestants of the game show or members of the audience. The game
show host constructed the questions and the audience watched the game show through
the series of questions. When the game show was over, the audience were asked to
rank the intelligence of the people who had taken part. They consistently ranked the
game show host as the most intelligent, even with knowledge that the host had made
his own questions.
Evaluation:
Jones and Harris (1967): This study has problems with ecological validity because the
task given to the participants is not realistic. There may also be an extraneous
variable, which are the opinions of the participants on Castro. Nevertheless, this study
is highly replicable although quality essays are required. The variables were well
controlled and the study is very simple but effective. This study is also relatively
ethical except for the fact that the participants had to be deceived of the true aim of
the study for the results to be valid. This also means that informed consent would not
be possible.
Lee et. al. (1977): This study may have problems with demand characteristics as the
participants may be suspicious of the unique set-up of the experiment. The study may
also have problems with generalizability as the participants were only university
students. In addition, it is also difficult to replicate. Nevertheless, this study is high in
ecological activity because game shows are very common. Elsewhere, it is also high
in external reliability because it is true that hosts do look smartest in game shows and
people tend to ignore the fact that they made the questions up or they already know all
the answers. This study is also very sound ethically aside from the fact that the
participants were deceived of the true aims of the study, which meant that informed
consent was not possible.
Fundamental Attribution Error: This concept has much empirical support and is
extremely useful. It can be applied to many things such as the reliability of eyewitness
testimonies, reliability of projective tests and formation of stereotypes. However,
there are obviously some ethical problems with the supporting studies. In addition,
cross-cultural studies in countries such as India and Japan have shown that
fundamental attribution error is not always present in collectivistic cultures.
Illusory Correlation
Definition:
To overestimate a link between two variables or see a relationship where no
relationship exists.
Study:
Chapman and Chapman (1967): Beginning clinicians observed draw-a-person test
drawing randomly paired (unknowingly to participants) with symptom statements of
patients. Although the relationship between symptoms and drawings were absent,
participants rated a high associative strength between symptom and drawing
characteristics (e.g., paranoia and drawing big eyes).
Evaluation:
Chapman and Chapman (1967): The study has problems with ecological validity as
the task presented to the participants is not something that happens in everyday life.
The study also has problems with generalizability as beginning clinicians is not a
good representative of the general population. There may also be much demand
characteristics as the participants may have conformed to common notions in hope of
not ruining the experiment by drawing unexpected things. Nevertheless, the study is
easily replicated. Ethically, the participants were deceived of the true aims of the
experiment, which meant that informed consent was not possible.
Illusory Correlation: This concept has much empirical support and is extremely
useful. It can be applied to many things such as the reliability of eyewitness
testimonies, reliability of projective tests and formation of stereotypes. However,
there are obviously some ethical problems with the supporting studies.
Sources: Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24, Errors in Attribution powerpoint, by Daniel
Hansson
Evaluate social identity Theory, making reference to two
relevant studies
Established by Tajfel & Turner
Outline

Our social identity, a part of our identity is derived from the social groups that
we belong to and that we do not belong to (Defining who we are by who we
aren’t)
 We derive self esteem by positively differentiating our in-group from outgroups
 We therefore tend to categorize our social environment into groups
 We tend to favourize our in-group over out-groups
Evaluation (+)





Supporting researches are well controlled and standardized
Application (Reducing prejudice)
Understanding of prejudice
Can be used for predictions of social behaviour
Can be generalized to other cultures
Evaluation (-)



Identification with an in-group may sometimes lead to low self esteem
Misidentification with an in-group
We may develop our self esteem and identity but emphasizing our uniqueness
and originality
 Problems of generalisability and ecological validity of supporting studies
 Possible cultural differences for in-group favouritism
Source: Mr.Hansson's powerpoint (slightly simplified/modified)
Two studies support the social identity theory
Name and year of study
Aim
Research method
Procedure
Findings
Tajfel et al (1971)
To demonstrate that merely putting people in to groups
(categorization) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor
of their own group and against members of the others.
Two laboratory experiments were done
Experiment 1:
Subjects were 64 schoolboys of fourteen and fifteen years old.
All subjects took part in a visual test, involving estimating the
number of dots on a screen. The boys were informed that they
would be divided into groups such as “over-estimators” or
“under-estimators” according to the results of visual test. In
fact, they were randomly grouped. Later participants were
asked to do a task where they had to allocate reward and
penalty points to other boys, both in-group and out-group.
Each boy was tested in isolation. The boys were told that they
cannot allocate points to themselves and would not know the
identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning
these rewards and penalties since everyone would be given to a
number code. During the test location, each boy received a
booklet, which showed how they can allocate points to other
boys. There were three different choices (in-group and ingroup, out-group and out-group, in-group and out-group).
Experiment 2:
48 boys of fourteen and fifteen years old were used as subjects
and all the subjects knew each other. The boys were shown
slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, which
were shown without the painter’s signature and were asked to
express their preferences. Later subjects were again randomly
divided into two groups, supposedly based upon their
performances for the paintings. In this experiment, matrices
were employed which allowed the experimenters to investigate
three variables. The three variables were: maximum joint profit
– where boys could give the largest reward to members of both
groups, largest possible reward to in-group – where the boys
could choose the largest reward for the member within their
group regardless of the reward to the boy from other group,
maximum difference – where boys could choose the largest
possible difference in reward between members of the different
groups (in favour of the in-group). Maximum joint profit and
giving the largest reward to the in-group would both achieved
by choosing the last pair in the row, giving 19 to a member of
your own group and 25 to a member of the other group.
However, to maximize your own rewards while also
maximizing the difference, you might well choose one of the
middle boxes and give 12 to a member of your own group and
11 to a member of the other group.
Experiment 1:
The results showed that within the same groups, fairness was
Conclusion
Methodological strength
Methodological weakness
Ethical considerations
Name and year of study
Aim
Research method
Procedure
displayed. When points had to be allocated to members of two
different groups at the same time, boys tend to give more
points to the boy in their group.
Experiment 2:
The results were boys choose maximum difference in favorism
of the in-group. Boys were decided not to give maximum
points within their group but only if it’s higher than the other
group. This clearly shows that the participants were favor
within their in-groups.
Randomly categorizing boys into meaningless groups, in-group
bias and out-group discrimination was shown. This means that
bias and discrimination against the out-group comes
automatically in any group situation without any competition
or hostility but simply from categorization. Lastly, the results
also show that the process of categorization oneself into a
group gives a distinct meaning to the individual’s behavior,
therefore creating a positive valued social identity.
Good experimental controls
Lacks ecological validity
Contains demand characteristics
Possible interpretation bias
Students were later inform the true nature of the experiment
Yuki et al (2005)
To determine if people automatically categorized themselves
and favor in their groups across cultures. The experiment was
to compare U.S. and Japanese university student in three
scenarios.
Two laboratory experiments were done
Experiment 1:
Subjects were 171 male and female from Ohio State
University, 171 male and female from Hokkaido University
students and 28 male and female Hokkaido Education
University students. Three scenarios were used: first, someone
is from an in-group; second, someone is from out-group with
potential (no actual) connection between the out-group
members through the participants’ acquaintance; third,
someone is from out-group that suggested with no potential
connection. The questionnaires were given to participants
about asking someone to watch luggage in an airport, allowing
someone to borrow money at a restaurant, and buying concert
tickets online from an individuals. Later they were told to
decide which person you would trust from any of the scenarios
defined above.
Experiment 2:
It replicated the first experiment, except it used a real money
allocation game to test trust in risky situation where
Findings
Conclusion
participants were told they would receive money based on their
decisions to trust unknown others. The aim of the experiment
is to test the differences in trusting in-groups and out-groups
because people value in-groups and make distinctions between
in-group and out-group. Subjects were 146 male and female
students from Ohio State University, and 122 male and female
students from Hokkaido University. Three scenarios were the
same was the experiment #1 (in-group members, out-group
members with potential connections and out-group members
with no connections). No rules were made to indicating the
amount was to be allocated to any person and allcator (who
received the money) decides how much money to keep and
how much money to give to the recipient (received the money).
Before the experiment, participants were told that they were
part of a real-time online money allocation game and the
computer would randomly assign the role of allocator or
recipient. In real, the computers were never connected and the
real participants were always assigned to be the recipient. They
had to decide whether to trust the other unknown person or not
in each of the three scenarios (dependent variables). During the
experiment, participants were given two choices; first, either
accepts a smaller amount of money 3 U.S dollars or 400 yen
for sure, second, to allow the other person to allocate the larger
amount as desired. And three trials were done for each
condition. At the end of the experiment, then participants were
debriefed the true nature of the experiment. And participants
were filled out a questionnaire about their identification with
the in-group. This would allow the researchers to correlate
trust with being a U.S or Japanese participants.
Experiment 1:
The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the
unknown person from the in-group more than they trusted
either out-group person. In addition, the Japanese sample was
more likely to trust the out-group member with potential
connection. In contrast, the U.S. sample did not trust either
out-group member, even if the person had a potential
connection.
Experiment 2:
The results showed that U.S students trusted the in-group far
more than either type of out-groups. No significant difference
between both out-groups. In contrast, Japanese students trusted
the in-group and out-group with potential connection. A
significant difference was found between trusting the potential
connected and the unconnected out-group.
Yuki suggested that participants had different reason for
trusting groups because of their cultures and different views.
U.S participants had greater identification with an in-group that
strongly correlated with their likelihood to trust someone. In
contrast, Japanese identification with a group was correlated
with the extent to which they felt an indirect connection with a
Methodological strength
Methodological weakness
Ethical considerations
depersonalized group. These correlations are consistent with
the theory that East Asians are more likely to make judgments
about groups based on relational needs and Americans are
more likely to make judgments about depersonalized groups
based on categories.
The experiment was well controlled and standardized.
High generalisability to other cultures.
Interpretation bias
Students were later informed the true nature of the experiment
Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on
behaviour
Stereotyping:
Social perception of an individual in terms of group membership or physical
attributes. The generalization is made about a group and attributed to all members
of the group; it can be good or bad. It is also a form of social categorization that
affects the behavior of those who has stereotypes. It can also be a schema or set of
beliefs or expectations about a person based on his group membership.
Illusory Correlation – a process in which a person builds false connection between
two variables that are not related or strengthen the connection between two loosely
linked variables.
When we make this mistake, we find ways to ‘prove it’ or simply believe it to be true
and affirm the correlation. This typically occurs when the things being correlated
stand out distinctively. There is also invisible correlation where an actual correlation
is missed. For example, the link between smoking and cancer was not realized for a
long time.
Illusory Correlation helps explain how social stereotypes and prejudices happen.
 David Hamilton and Terrence Rose (1980) found that stereotypes can lead to
people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together.
Confirmation Bias
It’s a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their bias or
hypotheses. People can reinforce their present attitude by selectively collecting new
evidence: by interpreting in a biased way or recalling specific information from
memory.
People tend to test their hypotheses in a one-sided manner.
The biases may appear in particular issues that are emotionally significant to the
individual.
Confirmation biases are effects in information processing, distinct from behavioral
confirmation effect in which people’s expectations influence their own behavior.
 They can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military
and political contexts.

It contributes to overconfidence in personal beliefs
Name and year of study
Aim
Research method
Procedure
Findings
Conclusion
Methodological strength
Methodological weakness
Ethical considerations
Hamilton and Gifford (1976)
To investigate the effect of illusory
correlation on stereotyping of the minority
Lab experiment
The researchers prepared a series of
information about behavior of people that
were in either group A (majority) or group
B (minority), which only contain half the
number of group A. The behaviors in the
study were divided into desirables and
undesirables with the same ratio in both
groups (9 desirables per 4
undesirables). The sequence of the group
and behavior were shown to the participant
at random. After finish reading, the
participants were asked to choose the
group that they prefer.
Most participants thought that group A is
better than group B, even if they had
similar good to bad ratio.
Group B were generally unfavorable
among the participants because their
undesirable behaviors appear rarer than
group A’s, therefore the participant will
tend to form an illusory correlation
between group B and misconduct. The
result of this experiment can be applied to
real life where minority group in the
society were stereotyped to have stronger
link with negative action than the majority
(e.g. African-American)
Usage of quantitative data gathering
reduced researcher’s bias.
Low ecological validity – was conducted
in a lab, reading about behavior didn’t
accurately model the real situation.
Low control – The participants’
personality can affect the result.
-
Effect on Behavior: Stereotype Threat

Occurs when a person who is exposed to a stereotype is negatively affected in
her behavior
 Stereotype threats turns on spotlight anxiety, which causes emotional distress
and pressure that may undermine performance

The threat becomes obvious when a group is told or shown that their group’s
performance is worse than other groups
Supporting Studies
Steele & Aronson, 1995
Experiment 1:
Involved African American and White college students who took a difficult
test using items from the GRE Verbal Exam under one of two conditions. In the
stereotype threat condition, students were told that their performance on the test
would be a good indicator of their underlying intellectual abilities. In the non-threat
condition, they were told that the test was simply a problem solving exercise and was
not diagnostic of ability. Performance was compared in the two conditions after
statistically controlling for self-reported SAT scores. African American participants
performed less well than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition,
but in the non-threat condition their performance equaled that of their white
counterparts.
Experiment 2:
Provided a replication of this effect but also showed that African Americans both
completed fewer test items and had less success in correctly answering items under
stereotype threat.
Experiment 3:
African-American and White undergraduates completed a task that was described
either as assessing or not assessing intellectual ability. When the task supposedly
measured ability, African-American participants performed more poorly. In addition,
they showed heightened awareness of their racial identity (by completing word
fragments related to their ethnicity), more doubts about their ability (by completing
word fragments related to low ability), a greater likelihood to invoke a priori excuses
for poor performance (i.e., self-handicapping), a tendency to avoid racial-stereotypic
preferences, and a lower likelihood of reporting their race compared with students in
the low-threat condition.
Experiment 4:
Sought to identify the conditions sufficient to activate stereotype threat by having
undergraduates complete the non-threat conditions from Experiments 1 & 2. Unlike
those experiments, however, students’ racial ethnic information was solicited from
half of the students, right before they completed the test items. Results showed that
performance was poorer only among African-Americans whose racial identity was
made salient prior to testing.
These studies established the existence of stereotype threat and provided evidence that
stereotypes suggesting poor performance, when made significant in a context
involving the stereotypical ability, can disrupt performance, produce doubt about
one's abilities, and cause an individual to dis-identify with one's ethnic group.
Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant
studies
Social Learning Theory
Creator: Albert Bandura (Conductor of the Bobo Doll Study in 1961)
Year Created: 1977
Concept: Social learning theory states that people learn from one another through
observing others actions, imitating them, and modeling them.
Factors that affect human behaviors
Environmental Factors
Social Norms
Access in Community
Influence on Others (Ability to change own environment)
Cognitive Factors (Dispositional Factors)
Knowledge
Expectations
Values
Behavioral Factors (Situational Factors)
Skills
Practice
Self-efficacy (Belief that one is capable of doing something well)
Three types of Observational Models that Influence Learning
Live model that act out actions for imitations
Model explaining behaviors through speaking
Symbolic models within media or books that perform the action
Modeling
Attention
One has to pay attention towards the situation. Any distractions might
have a negative affect towards the learning process.
Retention
This process requires memorizing the behaviors and later on
retracting them.
Motor Reproduction
The action is imitated through retraction of memory of the action. The
more the action is reproduced, the more skillful one becomes with the
action.
Motivation
This requires one to feel motivated to perform the action.
Reinforcement (rewards) and punishment may help to increase ones
motivation to perform the action.
‘Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models’ Bandura, Ross,
and Ross (1961)
Aim:
Learning can occur through mere observation of a model and that imitation
can occur in the absence of that model;
o Behaviors of the child would depend on the appearance of the
model
Less aggressive behavior with a non-aggressive model
boy model
Subject ~ 72 children, 36 boys and 36 girls, aged 37-69 months (mean age of
52 months) were used
Design ~
independent variable – condition of models
shown [aggressive, non-aggressive, and control condition]
Dependent variable – imitative behavior
and aggression shown by the children
Procedure ~
1) children were individually shown into a room containing toys
a.
the child played with potato prints and pictures in a corner
for 10 minutes while the following condition happen
i. nonaggressive adult model played quiet and subdued manner
ii.
aggress
ive adult model strike and hit the bobo doll aggressively
2) all children were taken to a different experimental location and
subjected to mild aggression arousal [stopping the child from playing
attractive toy]
a.
an arousal was made to allow the children to show equal
aggression
3) children shown to another room containing different type of toys
a.
one room with aggressive doll (bobo doll) and another with
non-aggressive toy (Tea)
b.
children were observed by a one way mirror for 20 minutes
4) observation made
a.
imitative behavior of aggressive model – physical
aggression, verbal aggression, non-aggressive speech
b.
partial imitation behavior of aggressive model – aggression
other object
c.
non-imitative physical and verbal aggression – physical
aggression
d.
non-aggressive behavior – sitting still and quietly
Results
o Children in the aggressive model condition show more imitation of
the model’s physical and verbal aggression more than those of the
non-aggressive condition and control condition
o Children in aggressive model condition usually show more partial
imitation and non-imitative physical and verbal aggression
o Children in non-aggressive model condition show less sign of
aggressive imitation
o Children acts differently according to the sex model such that
physical aggression happens to a male model and verbal aggression
happen to a female model.
Eron and Huesmann 1986
Aim: Does watching violence on television affect the aggressiveness of children’s
behavior?
Method: Correlational study
Procedure:
1) Travel around the world to study over 800 eight years old children
2) After 11 and 22 years later, restudy those children again
Finding:
1) The more hours children watch violence on television, the more tendency children
will be more aggressive in the classroom and playground
2) Children become more aggressive between the age of 19 to 30 years old
3) Even though children at the age of eight were not aggressive, they could turn more
aggressive than their peers who did not watch violent programs at the age around 19
years old if substantial amount of violence is watched
Discuss the use of compliance techniques (for example,
lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity)
Low-balling (Commitment: once people have agreed to something, either by their
behavior of by a statement of belief, they are likely to comply with similar requests)
Low-balling is the act of making an initial request attractive enough to gain
agreement, while not making the second request so outrageous that the other person
would refuse.
Study: Cialdini (1974)
o Research method: experiment
o Procedure: In the first group experimenters asked a class of 1st
year psychology
o students to volunteer to become part of a study on cognition, and
that they would meet at 7 a.m.
In the second group, the same favor was asked but this time, the time
to meet was not told when the favor was asked but after the students
agreed to take part.
o Findings: In the first group, although the students seem
enthusiastic about psychology, only 24 percent were willing to join
the research. However, in the second group, 56 percent agreed to take
part. And even though they were told of the meeting time, 95 percent
of the students who promise to come showed up for the appointment.
o Conclusion: In the first group, the students backed off on the
request (only 24 percent agreed to join) because of the meeting time.
However in the second group when the students already agreed to join
the study, there is closure and commitment to the agreement. The
students sense an illusion of irrevocability where they believe that a
decision made cannot be reversed. Thus when they are informed of
the time, they feel commited to their first agreement, and thus the
majority appeared at the appointment.
o Evaluation:
Methodological strength: Well controlled, it is high
replicability (simple experiment), to an extent high in external
reliability (it is being used in everyday life: advertisement,
sales, business), the experiment is valid; it is high in ecological
Lack generalizability to other groups; the students are
anticipated with the study as fellow psychology students, they
cannot represent the majority.
Ethical considerations: Deceiving the participants of the true
nature of the experiment.
Door-in-the-face-technique (reciprocity: people often feel they need to “return a
favor” – reciprocity principle = a social norm that we should treat others the way they
treat us)
Door-in-the-face-technique is when one feels that the other person has
compromised what he/she wants and that this compromise should therefore be
acknowledged with some behavior. (To request something that is surely to be turned
down, then requesting something that is asked less of someone – the second request is
likely to be accept because the person feels that the request has been lowered to
accommodate them).
Study: Cialdini (1975)
o Research method: experiment
o Procedure: Cialdini and team posed as representatives of “Country
Youth Counseling Program” stopped students on university campus
and ask them if they are willing to chaperone a group of delinquents
on a day trip to the zoo. Another time they stop the students and asked
if they are willing to sign up to work for two hours/week as
counselors for a minimum of two years, then following this request
(depending on their reaction to the first request) they are asked the
same request as in the first situation.
o Findings: In the first situation when the request was chaperoning a
group of delinquents on a day trip to a zoo, 83 % refused to volunteer.
In the second situation, the first request (counselors for 2 years) was
completely refused by all students, however with the follow up
request (which is the same request as the first situation), about 50%
agreed to serve as chaperones.
o Conclusion: The first request (being counselors for 2 years) is very
demanding, and is definitely turned down but because of this, the
students agreed to the second request (asking for the chaperone) more
(it being a smaller request than the first). Different from the first
situation, the second situation makes the students feel that the second
request has been lowered to accommodate them thus they are more
likely to accept.
o Evaluation:
Methodological strength: Well controlled, easy to replicate, to
an extent high in external reliability (it is being used in
everyday life: helps in accomplishing a agreeing request),
experiment is valid, high in ecological validity (appliance in
business – starting with very high price then making sales).
Methodological weakness: Lack generalizability to other
groups (student participants – young people may feel more
vulnerable to a request because it is from an adult than
participants of true nature of the experiment
Evaluation of the uses of Compliance techniques
Strength:
o Supporting research (e.g. Cialdini)
o Can be used to understand and predict behaviour (e.g. sect
behavior, marketing, persuasion)
o Applications (e.g. marketing)
Limitations:
o Ethical issues of using these techniques
o Individual differences in suggestibility for these techniques
(dispositional factors)
o Methodological/ethical problems of supporting studies
(generalisability, use of deception)
Evaluate research on conformity to group norms
Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture,
groupthink, risky shift, minority influence)
Group Think is a phenomenon that was discovered by Irving Janis (1982). He states
that in group think, a group of people comes to a decision without allowing members
to express doubts about it. Members shield themselves from any outside information
that might undermine this decision. The group would believe in this decision, and due
to disagreements both inside and outside the group are prevented, decisions made can
sometimes be disastrous. Janis stated that groupthink occurs most often in highly
cohesive groups that are able to seal themselves off from outside opinions, and have
very strong dynamic leaders.
An experiment done to support group think was done by Philip Tetlock and his
colleagues (1992), they had conducted an analysis of records of 12 different political
decisions. They concluded that it was possible to distinguish reliably between groups
whose decisions reflected groupthink and groups whose decision making showed
good judgment. The results provide support for the existence of the groupthink
process; the results confirmed the important role of the leader in determining the
quality of decision making. But the experiment had not supported the prediction of
groupthink being caused by high group cohesiveness. There are advantages of the
research the research is easily redo, to check the outcomes, and the research also
supports the group think phenomenon. On the other hand there are disadvantages
which are such as generalizability because the 12 different political decisions are only
taken from the American, so if they are from other country the outcome could have
differ. Another disadvantage is that there could also be researcher bias towards each
political decision affecting the outcome or findings.
MINORITY INFLUENCE!
society.” Mark Twain
 Conformity does not account for the full range of human behavior.
 People sometimes resist the group to tell the truth as they see it (e.g. protests).
 New ideas always reflect a minority viewpoint, but the group may eventually
come to accept them.
 Influence must flow from minority to majority (if not= no change)
 How to influence: they should have first conformed to the group,
demonstrated their competence and then slowly shifted their view over time.
 Minorities have the most influence when they are consistent and maintain their
viewpoint over time.
 Consistency triggers an attribution of confidence.
 Minority influence make people think divergently (open minded)
 Minority results in conversion (believing in private without acknowledging it
in public).
 Minority Influence is a social influence where the majority gets influence by
the minority.
 The majority changes their private opinion which this is called conversion.
 However, this will occur when the minority is influential, consistent, and
flexible.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE: MINORITY INFLUENCE
MOSCOVICI
Aim:
To see whether a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give
an incorrect answer in a colour perception test.
Procedures:
_ 172 participants in total were involved. All had good eyesight
_ Six participants at a time were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides
_ All the slides were blue, but of differing brightness
_ Tow of the six participants were accomplices of the experimenter
_ There were two conditions
- consistent: the two accomplices called the slides green on all the trials
- inconsistent: the two accomplices called the slides green 24 times,
and blue 12 times
Findings:
_ Participants in the consistent condition yielded and called the
slides green in 8.4% of the trials
_ 32% of participants in the consistent condition reported a green
slide at least once
_ Participants in the inconsistent condition yielded and called the
slides green in only 1.3% of the trials
Conclusions:
_ It is important that those in a minority behave consistently if they are
to influence a majority to change its viewpoint
_ Individual members of a minority must maintain a consistent
viewpoint and there needs to be agreement among the different members
of the minority group
_ Inconsistent minorities lack any real influence on majorities.
Their opinions are viewed as groundless
Criticisms:
_ The artificiality of the laboratory setting is unlike real-life situations where
minorities such as pressure groups exert their influence on the prevailing majority
opinion
_ Minorities must also avoid appearing rigidly inflexible
Define the terms "culture" and "cultural norms"
Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour (for
example, individualism/collectivism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, Confucian dynamism,
masculinity/femininity)
Culture: Culture is the set of ideas, behaviors, attitudes, and traditions that exist
within large groups of people (usually of a common religion, family, or something
similar). These ideas, behaviors, traditions, etc. are passed on from one generation to
the next and are typically resistant to change over time. Cultures vary widely not only
across the world, but even right next door. For example, if you live in America and
then visit different areas of Europe, you may notice that people often get closer to
each other physically in social settings - tables are often closer together at restaurants,
people stand closer to each other when they speak, etc. These are examples of cultural
differences.
Cultural norms: expected behaviors and attitudes in a cultural/ethnic group.
Individualism:
The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups.
Societies ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after
him/herself and his/her immediate family.
Collectivism:
Societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue
protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
Illustrate with examples and research
Example of Individualism:
For example, Germany can be considered as individualistic with a high score (89) on
the scale of Hofstede compared to a country like Guatemala where they have strong
collectivism (6 on the scale).
In Germany people stress on personal achievements and individual rights. Germans
expect from each other to fulfill their own needs. Group work is important, but
everybody has the right of his own opinion and is expected to reflect those. In an
individual country like Germany people tend to have more loose relationships than
countries where there is a collectivism where people have large extended families.
The United States can clearly been seen as individualistic (scoring a 91). The
“American dream” is clearly a representation of this. This is the Americans’ hope for
a better quality of life and a higher standard of living than their parents’. This belief is
that anyone, regardless of their status can ‘pull up their boot straps’ and raise
themselves from poverty.
Research Study: Markus and Kitayama (1991)
Aim: To investigate the characterization between US and Japanese culture
Procedure: They compared amount of in-group bias among students before and after a
university football match between two Japanese teams and between two American
teams.
Findings: The results revealed that both American teams showed in-group bias
through evaluations of their universities. Japanese ratings on the other hand, reflected
the universities status in the larger society.
Example of Collectivism:
China is one example of collectivism. People live in large families and depend on one
another. They are also highly bonded to one another due to their cultures.
Research Study: Yuki et. al. (2005)
Aim: To investigate the differences in two culture in trusting.
Procedure: Participants ask to trust someone in three scenarios, using three member of
the groups (member of the in-group, member of out group, member of out-group that
has a possible connection). The three scenarios were: asl to watch luggage at the
airport, allow someone to borrow money in a restaurant, buying concert tickets from
an individual online.
Findings: Both US and Japanese trust their in-group members more, and trust their out
group least. However, in the Japanese case they still trust those who are the outgroups but have some kind of connection to their in-group, while the US participant
does not trust any of the out-group at all. This shows the US participants are more of
an individualist since they keep to themselves, however the Japanese are more of a
collectivist where they trust their society and value themselves as a whole, which
leads to them trusting those who have some kind of connection to their ingroup.
More examples related to Individualism and Collectivism:
Uncertainty avoidance:
Definition= society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to
man’s search for Truth.
To what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or
comfortable in unstructured situations.
Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual.
Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by
strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and
religious level by a belief in absolute Truth
Absolute truth=”there can only be one Truth and we have it”
Example: Germany has a high uncertainty avoidance (65) compared to countries as
Singapore (8) and neighboring country Denmark (23).
Explanation of example
Germans are not too keen on uncertainty ( which means that they plan everything
carefully and try to avoid the uncertainty).
In Germany there is a society that relies on rules, laws and regulations. Germany
wants to reduce its risks to the minimum and proceed with changes step by step
Power distance (under collectivist and individualist)
The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like
the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents
inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that
a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.
Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and
anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all societies are
unequal, but some are more unequal than others'. Countries that are collectivists have
a higher number on the PDI than individualist countries.
Example: Germany has a 35 on the cultural scale of Hofstede’s analysis. Compared to
Arab countries where the power distance is very high (80) and Austria where it very
low (11), Germany is somewhat in the middle. Germany does not have a large gap
between the wealthy and the poor, but have a strong belief in equality for each citizen.
Germans have the opportunity to rise in society.
On the other hand, the power distance in the United States scores a 40 on the cultural
scale. The United States exhibits a more unequal distribution of wealth compared to
German society. As the years go by it seems that the distance between the ‘have’ and
‘have-nots’ grows larger and larger.
Under Collectivist country
Thailand, which is a collectivist country would have a higher power distance score.
Countries that are collectivists care about the equality and status thus grouping
themselves into their own groups. Such as the rich are all grouped together and the
poor are all grouped together.
Under an Individualistic country
Germany would be categorized as an individualistic country meaning that they
believe everyone is equal. Therefore Germany would have a lower score on the PDI
when compared to collectivist countries such as Thailand.
Masculinity/Femininity
Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between
the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of
solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less
among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another
contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different
from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s
values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest,
caring pole ‘feminine’.
Example: Germany has a masculine culture with a 66 on the scale of Hofstede
(Netherlands 14). Masculine traits include assertiveness, materialism/material success,
self-centeredness, power, strength, and individual achievements. The United States
scored a 62 on Hofstede’s scale. So these two cultures share, in terms of masculinity,
similar values.
Merritt and Helmreich (1996): Surveyed 9,000 male commercial airline pilots in
a study to replicate Hofstede’s study originally conducted in the late 1960s and early
1970s. Merritt and Helmreich selected airlines that were owned, managed, and
operated by members of the same national culture and pilots at those airlines whose
nationality at birth and current nationality matched the nationality of the airline. Pilots
from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and the Philippines had the highest power distance
scores; pilots from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa had the lowest.
Merritt and Helmreich found that power distance had the most relevance for aviation,
such as the use of automation (autopilot). Pilots with high power distance were
enthusiastic about automation because automation is perceived as authoritative. Pilots
with low power distance are least likely to accept automation because they dislike the
lack of personal control.
Malcolm Gladwell (journalist) in the book “Outliers”: Explored two plane
crashes—one Colombian (Avianca Flight 52) and another, South Korean (Korean Air
Flight 801. He focuses on how well the pilots communicated with each other and with
air traffic control. Poor communication in these examples, he argues, has to do with
the cultures’ power distance index, since both Colombia and South Korea rank
towards the top of the P.D.I. list, the subordinate members of their cockpit crews were
unable or unwilling to speak up as assertively as they should have about safety
concerns.
Using one or more examples, explain "emic" and "etic" concepts
•Etic: Etic approaches compare behaviour between cultures to find universal
behaviour that can be applied to cultures (same in every culture)
•Emic: Emic approaches describe culture-specific behaviour from within the culture
(differences in different cultures)
Illustrate emic and etic behaviour with examples and research:
Etic:
Paul Ekman (1982)
- Aim: to investigate that certain emotion is innate. (people from different culture
share the same facial expression for an emotion)
- method: Observation
Sample: members of the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea (isolated culture)
Procedure: observing member of the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea on their facial
expression on emotion and taking photographs of their facial expression. Ekman use
the photos that portray the tribe member's facial comparing with people's facial
expression around the world.
Finding: the members of the fore tribe and other people around the world have similar
facial expression for the an emotion
Conclusion: Some facial expression on certain emotions are innate where every share
the same facial expression to express their emotion
Emic:
• Cole & Scribner (1974)
Aim: To see the development of memory among tribal people in rural Liberia.
Method: Lab Experiment
Sample: Liberians participants (some of them attend school and some didn’t attend
school)
Procedure: The nature of these cultural differences can be seen in the studies of the
development of free-recall memory. In a free- recall task people are shown a large
number, one at a time, and then asked to remember them. The participants are allowed
to remember the words in any order they like. The words are divided into 4 main
categories and all of the items that are listed are familiar items.
Finding: The participants remembered approximately ten items on the first trial, and
managed to recall only two more items after 15 practice trials. The Liberian children
who attended school learn the materials more rapidly.
Conclusion: The researchers found that Liberian children showed no regular increase
in memory performance during middle childhood-unless they had attended school for
several years in contrast to children in industrial societies.
**Cole and Scribner (1974) want to investigate memory strategies in different
cultures. They compare the result of recalling the words between the US and rural
Liberian people. The researchers found out that the Liberian children who didn’t
attend school did not improve their memory skills after the age of 10. In contrast, the
Liberians children who attended school can memorized and recall the list more
rapidly just like the US children.