General Learning Outcomes
With reference to relevant studies, discuss how and why two particular research methods are used in SCLOA (eg. experiments, case studies, interviews, observations)
Intro
Research methods refer to the means by which and investigation is carried out. For different areas of psychology, different styles of experimentation can be more beneficial. Sociocultural LOA refers to the ways in which cultural and society influence our behavior in order for people to find a sense of belongingness. With such a wide range of methods that could be used, two important methods include laboratory experiments and participant observation.
Only use studies as examples
Experiments
Be specific - Laboratory Experiments
HOW
very structured, the only thing manipulated is the independent variable
participants are made to perform a task appointed by the researcher
quantitative data is collected from the results of the experimentation
are set based around an aim that the researcher is investigating
WHY
can be easily controlled - to show cause and effect
the highly controlled allows it to be easily replicated
many participants can take place - wide and rich data can be collected
means researcher triangulation can take place
Observations
Participant observation
HOW
When researchers immerse themselves in a social setting for an extended period of time and observe people’s behavior
covertly observe and integrate
set around a theory or idea, the observation then shapes the findings (no set aim)
WHY
societal groups can be infiltrated and observed that may be dangerous/exclusive to an outsider
no demand characteristics
rich qualitative data can be gathered
ecological validity
Conclusion
With benefits seen from both research methods, ideally method triangulation will be used, so that the benefits can combine and the credibility of the research will be higher. Many of the methods most commonly used at the SCLOA are methods which can use many participants at once, as the who purpose of SCLOA is investigating the effect that large groups (culture or society) have on an individual.
Research methods refer to the means by which and investigation is carried out. For different areas of psychology, different styles of experimentation can be more beneficial. Sociocultural LOA refers to the ways in which cultural and society influence our behavior in order for people to find a sense of belongingness. With such a wide range of methods that could be used, two important methods include laboratory experiments and participant observation.
Only use studies as examples
Experiments
Be specific - Laboratory Experiments
- Milgram
- Bandura
HOW
very structured, the only thing manipulated is the independent variable
participants are made to perform a task appointed by the researcher
quantitative data is collected from the results of the experimentation
are set based around an aim that the researcher is investigating
WHY
can be easily controlled - to show cause and effect
the highly controlled allows it to be easily replicated
many participants can take place - wide and rich data can be collected
means researcher triangulation can take place
Observations
Participant observation
- Festinger
- Rosenhan: societal way of looking at diagnosis
HOW
When researchers immerse themselves in a social setting for an extended period of time and observe people’s behavior
covertly observe and integrate
set around a theory or idea, the observation then shapes the findings (no set aim)
WHY
societal groups can be infiltrated and observed that may be dangerous/exclusive to an outsider
no demand characteristics
rich qualitative data can be gathered
ecological validity
- Credibility
- Content analysis
- Validity
- Triangulation
Conclusion
With benefits seen from both research methods, ideally method triangulation will be used, so that the benefits can combine and the credibility of the research will be higher. Many of the methods most commonly used at the SCLOA are methods which can use many participants at once, as the who purpose of SCLOA is investigating the effect that large groups (culture or society) have on an individual.
Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis
Intro
Sociocultural LOA refers to the ways in which cultural and society influence our behavior in order for people to find a sense of belongingness. While investigating these principles, or anything in psychology, there are some ethical considerations standards set for researchers to prevent harm to participants. These include:
Body
Milgram
Informed consent: participants were told the study was investigating learning styles, not obedience
Milgram and other psychologists hypothesized that the amount of people who would administer the top (450 volts) amount of shock would only be maximum 3%. 65% administered full shock and 100% went past 300 volts which would create lasting harm.
Greatly benefitted psychology with the discovery of the levels of obedience to authority figures.
Cultural aspects such as dimensions would have improved the study, as only americans were tested.
Zimbardo
Informed consent + deception: weren't told the role that they would play, or that the 'prisoners' would be publicly arrested.
Critical thinking: WEIGH UP COSTS AND BENEFITS what was broken, what was gained
Zimbardo - although a lot of stress, this has been used in many legal trials
Jane Elliot
Informed consent: decided to perform the experiment on her 3rd grade class without telling teachers or students and getting permission
Deception: weren't told they would be in an psychology study
Withdrawal: Elliot is a teacher, and the participants students, were not aware that they had a right to withdraw as the investigation was done covertly from andy other teachers or parents
Confidentiality: the study was publicized in the newspaper and video in following years, the identities of the participants can be accessed in public record
Showed ingruop and outgroup dynamics - the ease of identifying to arbitrary groups and discriminating those who are not a part of it
The study was allowed to be repeated for following years, provided parental consent, as the school deemed it a good lesson to the students
Bandura
Protection: study was investigating how children would learn. They were exposed prematurely to violence and were then tested to see if they would partake in such behavior.
Was at a great cost but huge benefits were gained to psychology for understanding how behavior is learned and the immediate effects it has at such a young age.
Conclusion
The ethical considerations are set by psychology to ensure the safety of all participants, and to cause as little harm as possible. The cost benefit argument is often brought up by those who agree and those who disagree with the strict guidelines for all future experiments.
Sociocultural LOA refers to the ways in which cultural and society influence our behavior in order for people to find a sense of belongingness. While investigating these principles, or anything in psychology, there are some ethical considerations standards set for researchers to prevent harm to participants. These include:
- Informed consent
- Deception
- Protection from harm
- Right to withdraw
- Debriefing
- Confidentiality
Body
Milgram
Informed consent: participants were told the study was investigating learning styles, not obedience
- If consent was informed, there would have been demand characteristic
- If consent was informed, the results would not be reliable
- Again, would not have been successful if they were aware of the fake shocks
- have to live the rest of their life knowing they would shock a stranger to lethal levels because they were 'told to'.
Milgram and other psychologists hypothesized that the amount of people who would administer the top (450 volts) amount of shock would only be maximum 3%. 65% administered full shock and 100% went past 300 volts which would create lasting harm.
Greatly benefitted psychology with the discovery of the levels of obedience to authority figures.
Cultural aspects such as dimensions would have improved the study, as only americans were tested.
Zimbardo
Informed consent + deception: weren't told the role that they would play, or that the 'prisoners' would be publicly arrested.
- if complete informed consent were to be gained, the realism of the study, which was vital, would have been compromised
- pathological prisoner syndrome - disbelief, followed by rebellion, then a range of negative behaviors. Causes a loss of personal identity, emasculation, dependency, and learned helplessness brought by the arbitrary control in the prison setting
- pathology of power - gross enjoyment of the power, some worked overtime with no pay and were disappointed when the experiment ended. abusive of their rights, some initiating abusive behavior towards the prisoners. This effected ZIMBARDO himself, as he became so wrapped up in the experiment and his power as 'prison warden' that his assistant has to end the experiment.
Critical thinking: WEIGH UP COSTS AND BENEFITS what was broken, what was gained
Zimbardo - although a lot of stress, this has been used in many legal trials
Jane Elliot
Informed consent: decided to perform the experiment on her 3rd grade class without telling teachers or students and getting permission
Deception: weren't told they would be in an psychology study
- it was a fairly controversial topic at the time, due to recent assassination of MLK jr
Withdrawal: Elliot is a teacher, and the participants students, were not aware that they had a right to withdraw as the investigation was done covertly from andy other teachers or parents
Confidentiality: the study was publicized in the newspaper and video in following years, the identities of the participants can be accessed in public record
Showed ingruop and outgroup dynamics - the ease of identifying to arbitrary groups and discriminating those who are not a part of it
The study was allowed to be repeated for following years, provided parental consent, as the school deemed it a good lesson to the students
Bandura
Protection: study was investigating how children would learn. They were exposed prematurely to violence and were then tested to see if they would partake in such behavior.
- The investigators were unaware of the lasting effect this would have on children, which is especially dangerous as they are still developing and it would make it difficult to unlearn the aggressive behavior.
Was at a great cost but huge benefits were gained to psychology for understanding how behavior is learned and the immediate effects it has at such a young age.
Conclusion
The ethical considerations are set by psychology to ensure the safety of all participants, and to cause as little harm as possible. The cost benefit argument is often brought up by those who agree and those who disagree with the strict guidelines for all future experiments.
Sociocultural Cognition
Discuss two errors in attribution
Attribution is the reason we give for behavior of either ourself or others. The sociocultural LOA deals with how
Fundamental attribution error Lee + Jones and Harris
Body One
Lee et al. (1977) carried out a laboratory experiment where, by the flip of a coin, gave a group of people the role of a game show host, contestant, or member. He then used the audience, who were aware of the method of choosing roles, to analyze and attribute traits of intelligence to both the host and the contestants after the experiment had concluded. Despite knowing that each “character” had been chosen by random, the audience still accredited the host as being more intelligent, and gave the contestants varying levels of intellect based on the performance they had been told to play. This proved not only that people attribute other people traits about their personality and completely disregard situational factors (randomly being assigned a personality to posses with dissimilar levels of intelligence), but this trait is so innate that even in the instance where we know the roles were predisposed, we still cannot break the instinctive judge of character based on dispositional factors. Despite the irrefutable results, some analysis must be made on the fact that the participants were all students, and, as students are so used to seeing the person posing and answering the questions as an authority figure, such as a professor, therefore possibly clouding their verdict as influenced rather than an error in judgment.
Body Two
Earlier in 1967 Jones and Harris conducted a similar laboratory experiment where students were made to rate essays written by fellow student either for or against Fidel Castro. Students were aware that sides were pre-picked for the students and those writing in support of Castro did not actually believe what they were saying, yet were still believed and later rumored to be avid supporters of Castro. This experiment, like the game show study were both performed in a laboratory which lacks ecological validity as the participants are aware of what the study is observing – hence behavior could be manipulated by this knowledge. Although this study may be considered out of date, research later on like with Lee have continued to achieve the same results, which increases its validity.
Self-serving Bias Lau and Russel (1980) + Ferrari and Tice + Posey and Smith
Body Three
Opposing to the FAE, self-serving bias is an error is attribution of traits towards oneself. It is an attribution of positive factors to own personal and internal self, and attributing negative to external and situational factors Lau and Russel analyzed 33 sports articles from 1977 reporting on both wins and losses. Attributions of dispositional factors were looked for in the articles of team winning – such as because the players were in shape, talent and ability, and effort. The articles broadcasting on teams that had lost we found to blame external factors such as bad reffing, weather, injuries and fouls. Although the reporters and coaches quotes in the articles had not given consent to be analyzed, it made this study have more ecological validity as there is no chance of warped commentary because they were unaware they would be used in a psychological study. The main limitations of this study were that it lacked range; it was only explored over male athletes and teams, and was only performed on Americans. Cultural norms or female behavior, if tested, may have altered the conclusion or provided contrasting data.
Body Four
Self-serving bias is closely related to the concept of self-handicapping. This is where an individual creates external factors that can be manipulated to be an ‘exit strategy’ if the task fails of the individual does not succeed. Ferrari and Tice looked into the self-handicapping related to procrastination and how it interlinks with the self-serving bias. They found that those who were chronic procrastinators were those who were the ones self-handicapping and therefore the ones using situational factors to accommodate for their mishaps.
Body Five: Posey and Smith
· To investigate SSB in kids
· 20 male and 16 female second grade students
· Kids paired with a partner of the same gender and asked to complete 3-minute maths worksheet as a pair
· One half of participants were paired with a friend and other half were not
· At the end all of them got feedback with either success/failure
· Results: Those in non-friend groups were blaming failure to their partners
· When asked who did a better job they gave credit to themselves
· Contrary – children paired with friends were less likely to blame others/external factors for their failure
· Participants who were blaming others for failure demonstrated SSB – by putting blame on partners, they wanted to protect their ego/self-esteem
+ Ecologically valid – group work
+ Used kids young enough to not display demand characteristics/know the theory
- Only children, cannot generalise to adults
- Only 2nd grade kids, cannot generalise to all kids/schoolchildren
- Small participant pool
- Probably did not get informed consent
- Could cause sadness/undue stress
Conclusion:
Although both errors were not tested in studies on a large enough scale to conclude the results to be a representation of the world wide behavioral norm, they both produced results ultimately supporting both the fundamental attribution theory and self-serving bias. The results are conclusive enough for their respective areas and conclude that the theories are indeed more true than false; we tend to attributes others mistakes to dispositional traits due to our lack of knowledge of them, and to our self we attribute situational reasons to our failures and downfalls, yet when we excel we attribute it to our dispositional self. Testing on children, although unethical, suggests that the concept of SSB starts at a young age and may be an innate characteristic.
Fundamental attribution error Lee + Jones and Harris
Body One
Lee et al. (1977) carried out a laboratory experiment where, by the flip of a coin, gave a group of people the role of a game show host, contestant, or member. He then used the audience, who were aware of the method of choosing roles, to analyze and attribute traits of intelligence to both the host and the contestants after the experiment had concluded. Despite knowing that each “character” had been chosen by random, the audience still accredited the host as being more intelligent, and gave the contestants varying levels of intellect based on the performance they had been told to play. This proved not only that people attribute other people traits about their personality and completely disregard situational factors (randomly being assigned a personality to posses with dissimilar levels of intelligence), but this trait is so innate that even in the instance where we know the roles were predisposed, we still cannot break the instinctive judge of character based on dispositional factors. Despite the irrefutable results, some analysis must be made on the fact that the participants were all students, and, as students are so used to seeing the person posing and answering the questions as an authority figure, such as a professor, therefore possibly clouding their verdict as influenced rather than an error in judgment.
Body Two
Earlier in 1967 Jones and Harris conducted a similar laboratory experiment where students were made to rate essays written by fellow student either for or against Fidel Castro. Students were aware that sides were pre-picked for the students and those writing in support of Castro did not actually believe what they were saying, yet were still believed and later rumored to be avid supporters of Castro. This experiment, like the game show study were both performed in a laboratory which lacks ecological validity as the participants are aware of what the study is observing – hence behavior could be manipulated by this knowledge. Although this study may be considered out of date, research later on like with Lee have continued to achieve the same results, which increases its validity.
Self-serving Bias Lau and Russel (1980) + Ferrari and Tice + Posey and Smith
Body Three
Opposing to the FAE, self-serving bias is an error is attribution of traits towards oneself. It is an attribution of positive factors to own personal and internal self, and attributing negative to external and situational factors Lau and Russel analyzed 33 sports articles from 1977 reporting on both wins and losses. Attributions of dispositional factors were looked for in the articles of team winning – such as because the players were in shape, talent and ability, and effort. The articles broadcasting on teams that had lost we found to blame external factors such as bad reffing, weather, injuries and fouls. Although the reporters and coaches quotes in the articles had not given consent to be analyzed, it made this study have more ecological validity as there is no chance of warped commentary because they were unaware they would be used in a psychological study. The main limitations of this study were that it lacked range; it was only explored over male athletes and teams, and was only performed on Americans. Cultural norms or female behavior, if tested, may have altered the conclusion or provided contrasting data.
Body Four
Self-serving bias is closely related to the concept of self-handicapping. This is where an individual creates external factors that can be manipulated to be an ‘exit strategy’ if the task fails of the individual does not succeed. Ferrari and Tice looked into the self-handicapping related to procrastination and how it interlinks with the self-serving bias. They found that those who were chronic procrastinators were those who were the ones self-handicapping and therefore the ones using situational factors to accommodate for their mishaps.
Body Five: Posey and Smith
· To investigate SSB in kids
· 20 male and 16 female second grade students
· Kids paired with a partner of the same gender and asked to complete 3-minute maths worksheet as a pair
· One half of participants were paired with a friend and other half were not
· At the end all of them got feedback with either success/failure
· Results: Those in non-friend groups were blaming failure to their partners
· When asked who did a better job they gave credit to themselves
· Contrary – children paired with friends were less likely to blame others/external factors for their failure
· Participants who were blaming others for failure demonstrated SSB – by putting blame on partners, they wanted to protect their ego/self-esteem
+ Ecologically valid – group work
+ Used kids young enough to not display demand characteristics/know the theory
- Only children, cannot generalise to adults
- Only 2nd grade kids, cannot generalise to all kids/schoolchildren
- Small participant pool
- Probably did not get informed consent
- Could cause sadness/undue stress
Conclusion:
Although both errors were not tested in studies on a large enough scale to conclude the results to be a representation of the world wide behavioral norm, they both produced results ultimately supporting both the fundamental attribution theory and self-serving bias. The results are conclusive enough for their respective areas and conclude that the theories are indeed more true than false; we tend to attributes others mistakes to dispositional traits due to our lack of knowledge of them, and to our self we attribute situational reasons to our failures and downfalls, yet when we excel we attribute it to our dispositional self. Testing on children, although unethical, suggests that the concept of SSB starts at a young age and may be an innate characteristic.
Evaluate Social Identity Theory making reference to relevant studies
evaluate the THEORY - bring in studies that support it
Intro:
· Social Identity Theory (SIT)
· Developed by Tajfel and Turner and is based on four interrelated concepts:
1) social categorisation (ingroups and outgroups)
2) social identity (adopt identity of the group and adopt values and behaviours)
3) social comparison (compare to outgroups. Drawing favorable comparisons with other relevant groups)
4) positive distinctiveness (Cialdini 1976)
· Understand intergroup relations and group processes – particularly negative or hostile ones
· SIT is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s)
· Source of self esteem
· Ingroups (we) and outgroups (them)
· In order to enhance our self image we enhance the status of the group
· Based on the assumption that individuals have a basic need for positive self esteem and that self esteem is wrapped in both personal and social identities.
· We all have social identities based on the groups we belong to and with which we identify (racial groups, nationalities, social groups, sports clubs)
BP 1
Study: Tajfel et al (1971) – Minimal group Paradigm
Method:
· British schoolboys into two groups randomly
· Boys were led to believe they had been assigned their groups based on preference of paintings by two artists. The boys had to distribute points to ingroup and outgroup members
· The boys showed a tendency to favour members of their ingroup, manifesting ingroup favouritism.
· On many occasions, boys gave ingroup members 7 and outgroup 1 rather than 13 for both.
· Positive distinctiveness
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ shows in-group favoritism
+ meaningless groups (fair)
- lacks ecological validity/artificial lab experiment
- cannot be generalized (all British, all schoolboys so same age) and not a good sample of general population
- because they are children they may want more points to them rather than fair points to both teams (age could affect understanding) and may think that they are expected to compete with each other.
BP 2
Study: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
Method:
· Stanford uni psych department
· To test situational causes of negative behavior
· Simulation
· 22 male Caucasian, middle class college students from US. All mentally stable
· Randomly assigned role of guard/prisoner. Prisoners must lead a natural prison life and guards were only given instructions not to use violence
· Pathological prisoner syndrome: depression and anger
· Pathology of power in guards. Dehumanised prisoners.
Evaluation:
+ Ecologically valid and very naturalistic
+ Randomly assigned = fair
+ De-briefed participants
+ Prior check-ups and check-ups after
+ Pathology of power shows that the guards developed an in-group favoritism and mistreated the prisoners, us vs them mentality was adopted.
- all prisoners and guards were male. Females may have acted more nurturing/caring and therefore this cannot be generalized
- Ethics: did not have participant protection
- Method: no real instructions given to guards. Unlike real prison. No training.
· If we are a positively valued group (guards) we will tend to identify with that group and behave accordingly.
BP 3
Study: Jane Elliot
Method:
· Covert observation – drew a fine line between brown-eyed kids and blue-eyed kids
· Blue were in-group and treated as more superior in comparison to brown
· Told her pupils a fake scientific explanation of how eye color defined people: blue eyes showed people who were smart, quicker, more likely to succeed.
· Brown eyes were untrustworthy, lazy and stupid
· She then divided the class according to who had brown eyes and who had blue
· She gave blue group extra classroom privileges, wouldn’t let the brown-eyed children drink from the same fountain. Praised blues more and more negative to browns
· Results: blues became more arrogant and bossy and unpleasant to browns
· Browns became more timid, even those that had previously dominated the class
· Blues improved their grades, managed tasks that had proved out of their grasp before
· Browns who were previously good stumbled over simple questions
· When she revealed that it wasn’t true, the browns removed the ribbons that were tied to them (to show distinction) and the situation quickly reversed
+ Was able to create a microcosm of society by assigning students to be more ‘superior’ than others on basis of their eye-color
+ Provided a great deal to learn about the way humans act in different cultural contexts
+ Contributes to society as a whole – shows how much discrimination is soaked up subconsciously, by both the oppressor and the oppressed
+ Links to a wider concept – racism
+ Also proved that racism can be unlearnt as quickly as it can be learnt
+ Shows ingroups and how they can behave to others
- Unethical – no participant protection, consent, right to withdraw
Only done on children – cannot be generalized
BP4: Family and social identity
· We tend to provide more help to those whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves, our in-groups
· Levine (2005)
· 45 students in the UK who identified themselves as Man United fans did a questionnaire about MU and their feelings towards the team (to provoke emotions/a sense of identity with the team)
· They were then assigned to see another student fall and act as though they were in pain
· When the falling student was wearing a ManU shirt, 80% of participants helped
· When the falling student wore a Liverpool shirt, 40% helped
· We are more likely to help in-group members
· A factor influencing bystanderism could be that we don’t want to interfere in somebody else’s in-group (family conflicts in public etc) because we are not part of that group. A factor influencing bystanderism is therefore social identity
Conclusion:
the theory is too simplistic - the definition of a group can be loose depending on the type of group --> groups can change baed on environmental stimuli (Levine 2d experiment) where certain 'ingroups' can be heightened.
limitation - a lot is experimental - lacks ecological validity
Intro:
· Social Identity Theory (SIT)
· Developed by Tajfel and Turner and is based on four interrelated concepts:
1) social categorisation (ingroups and outgroups)
2) social identity (adopt identity of the group and adopt values and behaviours)
3) social comparison (compare to outgroups. Drawing favorable comparisons with other relevant groups)
4) positive distinctiveness (Cialdini 1976)
· Understand intergroup relations and group processes – particularly negative or hostile ones
· SIT is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s)
· Source of self esteem
· Ingroups (we) and outgroups (them)
· In order to enhance our self image we enhance the status of the group
· Based on the assumption that individuals have a basic need for positive self esteem and that self esteem is wrapped in both personal and social identities.
· We all have social identities based on the groups we belong to and with which we identify (racial groups, nationalities, social groups, sports clubs)
BP 1
Study: Tajfel et al (1971) – Minimal group Paradigm
Method:
· British schoolboys into two groups randomly
· Boys were led to believe they had been assigned their groups based on preference of paintings by two artists. The boys had to distribute points to ingroup and outgroup members
· The boys showed a tendency to favour members of their ingroup, manifesting ingroup favouritism.
· On many occasions, boys gave ingroup members 7 and outgroup 1 rather than 13 for both.
· Positive distinctiveness
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ shows in-group favoritism
+ meaningless groups (fair)
- lacks ecological validity/artificial lab experiment
- cannot be generalized (all British, all schoolboys so same age) and not a good sample of general population
- because they are children they may want more points to them rather than fair points to both teams (age could affect understanding) and may think that they are expected to compete with each other.
BP 2
Study: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
Method:
· Stanford uni psych department
· To test situational causes of negative behavior
· Simulation
· 22 male Caucasian, middle class college students from US. All mentally stable
· Randomly assigned role of guard/prisoner. Prisoners must lead a natural prison life and guards were only given instructions not to use violence
· Pathological prisoner syndrome: depression and anger
· Pathology of power in guards. Dehumanised prisoners.
Evaluation:
+ Ecologically valid and very naturalistic
+ Randomly assigned = fair
+ De-briefed participants
+ Prior check-ups and check-ups after
+ Pathology of power shows that the guards developed an in-group favoritism and mistreated the prisoners, us vs them mentality was adopted.
- all prisoners and guards were male. Females may have acted more nurturing/caring and therefore this cannot be generalized
- Ethics: did not have participant protection
- Method: no real instructions given to guards. Unlike real prison. No training.
· If we are a positively valued group (guards) we will tend to identify with that group and behave accordingly.
BP 3
Study: Jane Elliot
Method:
· Covert observation – drew a fine line between brown-eyed kids and blue-eyed kids
· Blue were in-group and treated as more superior in comparison to brown
· Told her pupils a fake scientific explanation of how eye color defined people: blue eyes showed people who were smart, quicker, more likely to succeed.
· Brown eyes were untrustworthy, lazy and stupid
· She then divided the class according to who had brown eyes and who had blue
· She gave blue group extra classroom privileges, wouldn’t let the brown-eyed children drink from the same fountain. Praised blues more and more negative to browns
· Results: blues became more arrogant and bossy and unpleasant to browns
· Browns became more timid, even those that had previously dominated the class
· Blues improved their grades, managed tasks that had proved out of their grasp before
· Browns who were previously good stumbled over simple questions
· When she revealed that it wasn’t true, the browns removed the ribbons that were tied to them (to show distinction) and the situation quickly reversed
+ Was able to create a microcosm of society by assigning students to be more ‘superior’ than others on basis of their eye-color
+ Provided a great deal to learn about the way humans act in different cultural contexts
+ Contributes to society as a whole – shows how much discrimination is soaked up subconsciously, by both the oppressor and the oppressed
+ Links to a wider concept – racism
+ Also proved that racism can be unlearnt as quickly as it can be learnt
+ Shows ingroups and how they can behave to others
- Unethical – no participant protection, consent, right to withdraw
Only done on children – cannot be generalized
BP4: Family and social identity
· We tend to provide more help to those whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves, our in-groups
· Levine (2005)
· 45 students in the UK who identified themselves as Man United fans did a questionnaire about MU and their feelings towards the team (to provoke emotions/a sense of identity with the team)
· They were then assigned to see another student fall and act as though they were in pain
· When the falling student was wearing a ManU shirt, 80% of participants helped
· When the falling student wore a Liverpool shirt, 40% helped
· We are more likely to help in-group members
· A factor influencing bystanderism could be that we don’t want to interfere in somebody else’s in-group (family conflicts in public etc) because we are not part of that group. A factor influencing bystanderism is therefore social identity
Conclusion:
the theory is too simplistic - the definition of a group can be loose depending on the type of group --> groups can change baed on environmental stimuli (Levine 2d experiment) where certain 'ingroups' can be heightened.
limitation - a lot is experimental - lacks ecological validity
Social Norms
Discuss the use of compliance techniques
Intro: Compliance is the social influence from one person to another to induce a certain change, involving a direct request.
BP 1
Technique & Study: Likability – Seiter
· An individual’s attempt to become more likable by target.
· Often achieved in 1 of 3 ways:
1) complimentary
2) opinion conformity
3) self-promotion
Method:
· Done at two restaurants in Northern Utah with 188 participants in total, dining in pairs
· Customers who received compliments on their dish choice by waiter tipped larger amounts than those who received no compliments
Evaluation:
+ ecologically valid
+ large participant pool
+ two restaurants – more reliable
- only in N Utah – cannot generalise
- food servers were female so opposite sex attraction may have influenced tipping
- how to measure fair levels of friendliness between waiters and customers?
- unethical (participants did not know it was an experiment)
BP 2
Technique & Study: Principle of reciprocity – Regan
· People feel the need to return a gesture if someone does something nice
Method:
· People who were given a soda by someone were more likely to buy a raffle ticket than those who were not
· Irrelevant favour condition: those given a soda and asked by somebody else to buy a ticket were less likely to buy it
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory
+ ecologically valid (charities)
+ controlled
- unethical
- genuinely not wanting to buy tickets
- cannot generalise as study is based on charities which involve giving
BP 3
Technique/Study: Foot in the door – Freedman and Fraser
· Requester persuades target to first agree to a smaller request which is then followed up with a bigger request (the target request)
Method:
· Asked California homeowners for permission to allow a large, unattractive “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign to be placed in their gardens. Only 17% of them agreed.
· Different set of homeowners asked if a small “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign could be placed. Nearly all agreed. 2 weeks later, same set asked about a larger sign. 76% agreed.
Evaluation:
+ clearly supports theory
+ ecologically valid
+ variation of homeowners – more generalizable
+ controlled groups
- Not a fair experiment – two diff groups, extraneous variables
- California only, cannot generalise
- Asked only two sets – answers may have been affected by neighbourhood/class.
EXTRA STUDY #1: Dickerson et al
· Asked students in California to first sign a poster that helps conserve water. Then asked to take a survey that was designed to make them think about their water wastage, and their shower times were then monitored
· Students who had signed the poster had shorter average times
· Doing the small request caused them to honour the target request
- Students may have signed poster because they were already committed to the cause
- No causal relationship only correlational – perhaps they already had short shower times
- Only students, cannot generalise
- Only Californians, cannot generalise
- Survey may have had diff effect on diff people
- Unethical – tricking them
+ Showed FITD
BP 4
Technique/Study: Low balling – Cialdini
· Persuader secures agreement with a request and only after reveals a hidden cost
Method:
· Asked students in controlled group to participate in an experiment that began at 7am, and most refused
· Asked students in experimental condition to participate without knowing timings, and most agreed. Only later were they told the time and given the opportunity to drop out. 95% of them turned up as promised
Evaluation:
+ ecologically valid
+ controlled
+ Statistically significant result
- only students – cannot generalise. Most in that age group need their sleep
- Could have genuinely been fine with waking up that early
- unethical
- some may have not wanted to take part and therefore turned it down in controlled condition
EXTRA STUDY #2: Burger and Cornelius
· Students contacted by a female caller who asked if they would donate 5 dollars to a scholarship fund for underprivileged students
· 3 experimental conditions: 1) LB condition: students told that those who contributed would receive a free smoothie coupon. Students who agreed were then informed that the caller had realised she’d run out of coupons and student was then asked if they’d still contribute
· 2) Caller made same request as LB condition, but before answering, the caller interrupted to let them know there were no more coupons
· 3) Students were asked to donate money without mentioning coupons (control)
· Results: 1) 77.6% agreed 2) 16% agreed 3) 42% agreed
· LB is based on commitment. Only effective when people make an initial public commitment
· After which, they feel obliged to act in accordance with it, even if conditions they have committed to have changed.
- Students only, cannot generalise
- Female caller may have had the impact to make males donate rather than smoothie
- Unethical – deception and money used
- Phone: perhaps those who didn’t donate truly didn’t want to because they thought it was a scam
+ Significant results
+ Controlled – cause + effect
+ Ecologically valid – telephone donations are common
Conclusion:
Compliance can be achieved by many different methods as pointed out. It is the result of a direct question and are techniques used directly in effort to manipulate someone's decision. Presumably if combined the compliance levels will be even higher. This, like conformity can be used to sway someone in the work place, but different to conformity involves direct questioning and therefore is overt.
BP 1
Technique & Study: Likability – Seiter
· An individual’s attempt to become more likable by target.
· Often achieved in 1 of 3 ways:
1) complimentary
2) opinion conformity
3) self-promotion
Method:
· Done at two restaurants in Northern Utah with 188 participants in total, dining in pairs
· Customers who received compliments on their dish choice by waiter tipped larger amounts than those who received no compliments
Evaluation:
+ ecologically valid
+ large participant pool
+ two restaurants – more reliable
- only in N Utah – cannot generalise
- food servers were female so opposite sex attraction may have influenced tipping
- how to measure fair levels of friendliness between waiters and customers?
- unethical (participants did not know it was an experiment)
BP 2
Technique & Study: Principle of reciprocity – Regan
· People feel the need to return a gesture if someone does something nice
Method:
· People who were given a soda by someone were more likely to buy a raffle ticket than those who were not
· Irrelevant favour condition: those given a soda and asked by somebody else to buy a ticket were less likely to buy it
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory
+ ecologically valid (charities)
+ controlled
- unethical
- genuinely not wanting to buy tickets
- cannot generalise as study is based on charities which involve giving
BP 3
Technique/Study: Foot in the door – Freedman and Fraser
· Requester persuades target to first agree to a smaller request which is then followed up with a bigger request (the target request)
Method:
· Asked California homeowners for permission to allow a large, unattractive “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign to be placed in their gardens. Only 17% of them agreed.
· Different set of homeowners asked if a small “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign could be placed. Nearly all agreed. 2 weeks later, same set asked about a larger sign. 76% agreed.
Evaluation:
+ clearly supports theory
+ ecologically valid
+ variation of homeowners – more generalizable
+ controlled groups
- Not a fair experiment – two diff groups, extraneous variables
- California only, cannot generalise
- Asked only two sets – answers may have been affected by neighbourhood/class.
EXTRA STUDY #1: Dickerson et al
· Asked students in California to first sign a poster that helps conserve water. Then asked to take a survey that was designed to make them think about their water wastage, and their shower times were then monitored
· Students who had signed the poster had shorter average times
· Doing the small request caused them to honour the target request
- Students may have signed poster because they were already committed to the cause
- No causal relationship only correlational – perhaps they already had short shower times
- Only students, cannot generalise
- Only Californians, cannot generalise
- Survey may have had diff effect on diff people
- Unethical – tricking them
+ Showed FITD
BP 4
Technique/Study: Low balling – Cialdini
· Persuader secures agreement with a request and only after reveals a hidden cost
Method:
· Asked students in controlled group to participate in an experiment that began at 7am, and most refused
· Asked students in experimental condition to participate without knowing timings, and most agreed. Only later were they told the time and given the opportunity to drop out. 95% of them turned up as promised
Evaluation:
+ ecologically valid
+ controlled
+ Statistically significant result
- only students – cannot generalise. Most in that age group need their sleep
- Could have genuinely been fine with waking up that early
- unethical
- some may have not wanted to take part and therefore turned it down in controlled condition
EXTRA STUDY #2: Burger and Cornelius
· Students contacted by a female caller who asked if they would donate 5 dollars to a scholarship fund for underprivileged students
· 3 experimental conditions: 1) LB condition: students told that those who contributed would receive a free smoothie coupon. Students who agreed were then informed that the caller had realised she’d run out of coupons and student was then asked if they’d still contribute
· 2) Caller made same request as LB condition, but before answering, the caller interrupted to let them know there were no more coupons
· 3) Students were asked to donate money without mentioning coupons (control)
· Results: 1) 77.6% agreed 2) 16% agreed 3) 42% agreed
· LB is based on commitment. Only effective when people make an initial public commitment
· After which, they feel obliged to act in accordance with it, even if conditions they have committed to have changed.
- Students only, cannot generalise
- Female caller may have had the impact to make males donate rather than smoothie
- Unethical – deception and money used
- Phone: perhaps those who didn’t donate truly didn’t want to because they thought it was a scam
+ Significant results
+ Controlled – cause + effect
+ Ecologically valid – telephone donations are common
Conclusion:
Compliance can be achieved by many different methods as pointed out. It is the result of a direct question and are techniques used directly in effort to manipulate someone's decision. Presumably if combined the compliance levels will be even higher. This, like conformity can be used to sway someone in the work place, but different to conformity involves direct questioning and therefore is overt.
Evaluate research on conformity to group norms
Intro: Conformity is a type of social influence in which individuals change their attitude/behavior to adhere to existing social norms.
BP 1
Factor and Study:
Unanimity/majority influence – Asch
· Likelihood of conformity increases when everyone agrees to a point
· 123 male students from a college in the USA.
· 1 participant in a room with 6 confederates. Asked to indicate which of the 3 lines were the same as a standard line
· confederates gave consciously wrong answers on 12/18 trials
· genuine participants were always last to answer
· 76% of participants conformed on at least 1 trial, only 24% remained independent
Evaluation:
+ large participant pool, can generalize to wider population
+ Confederates were similar in age, sex, economic status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
+ one participant to six confederates – detailed and careful
- sample all male, all students, all American – cannot generalize
- 1950s outdated study – society which valued conformity
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception. Pressure to stay till the end because of pay. Asch said some were distressed & uncomfortable
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable
BP 2
Factor and Study: Ingroups – Abrams et al
Method:
· Replicated Asch’s study with psychology students using 3 confederates
· 1st condition: genuine participants made to believe confederates were also psychology students (ingroup)
· 100% of participants conformed at least once
· 2nd condition: participants believed confederates were history students (outgroup)
· 50% of participants conformed
· influenced by groups we feel a part of
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ supports theory
+ huge difference between two conditions, statistically significant
- assumes ingroup prejudice – correlational not causal
- all psych students – cannot generalize to other students
- Only students, cannot generalize to other groups of people (perhaps students are more easily influenced)
- pressure of experimenter
- ethics
BP 3
Factor and study: Self-esteem – Perrin and Spencer
Method:
· Exact replication of Asch’s experiment using British engineering, maths and chemistry students as participants
· Only 1 OUT OF 396 trials did someone conform!!!!
· Those with higher self esteem don’t feel the need to conform
· Makes Asch’s experiment unreliable
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory HUGELY
+ large participant pool
+ controlled, lab experiment
- assumes those in advanced professional fields have higher self-esteem than others
- all British, from 3 similar fields, cannot generalize
- ecological validity is lacking – may put value in lines with mathematical background
- DC - may have heard of Asch’s experiment
BP4
Factor and study: Culture - Bond and Smith
· Theory of cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
· Individualism: individual thoughts are encouraged, hence lower levels of conformity
· Collectivism: tendency to conform more easily because a harmony will be reached that way
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalized
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
Conclusion:
Three of the studies used the same methodology, which shows reliability, which allows the IV of the actual factors to be responsible for the differing levels of conformity. Lacks ecological validity. With Asch's study being repeated so many times and many of the participants being psych students, there is a possibility of participants knowing the study - and therefore presenting demand characteristics. Overall however, the studies show the what factors contribute to levels of conformity. Conformity as part of the SCLOA shows how the social groups around us can change our viewpoint to a point where we change our own behavior to fit another groups common concepts.
BP 1
Factor and Study:
Unanimity/majority influence – Asch
· Likelihood of conformity increases when everyone agrees to a point
· 123 male students from a college in the USA.
· 1 participant in a room with 6 confederates. Asked to indicate which of the 3 lines were the same as a standard line
· confederates gave consciously wrong answers on 12/18 trials
· genuine participants were always last to answer
· 76% of participants conformed on at least 1 trial, only 24% remained independent
Evaluation:
+ large participant pool, can generalize to wider population
+ Confederates were similar in age, sex, economic status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
+ one participant to six confederates – detailed and careful
- sample all male, all students, all American – cannot generalize
- 1950s outdated study – society which valued conformity
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception. Pressure to stay till the end because of pay. Asch said some were distressed & uncomfortable
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable
BP 2
Factor and Study: Ingroups – Abrams et al
Method:
· Replicated Asch’s study with psychology students using 3 confederates
· 1st condition: genuine participants made to believe confederates were also psychology students (ingroup)
· 100% of participants conformed at least once
· 2nd condition: participants believed confederates were history students (outgroup)
· 50% of participants conformed
· influenced by groups we feel a part of
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ supports theory
+ huge difference between two conditions, statistically significant
- assumes ingroup prejudice – correlational not causal
- all psych students – cannot generalize to other students
- Only students, cannot generalize to other groups of people (perhaps students are more easily influenced)
- pressure of experimenter
- ethics
BP 3
Factor and study: Self-esteem – Perrin and Spencer
Method:
· Exact replication of Asch’s experiment using British engineering, maths and chemistry students as participants
· Only 1 OUT OF 396 trials did someone conform!!!!
· Those with higher self esteem don’t feel the need to conform
· Makes Asch’s experiment unreliable
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory HUGELY
+ large participant pool
+ controlled, lab experiment
- assumes those in advanced professional fields have higher self-esteem than others
- all British, from 3 similar fields, cannot generalize
- ecological validity is lacking – may put value in lines with mathematical background
- DC - may have heard of Asch’s experiment
BP4
Factor and study: Culture - Bond and Smith
· Theory of cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
· Individualism: individual thoughts are encouraged, hence lower levels of conformity
· Collectivism: tendency to conform more easily because a harmony will be reached that way
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalized
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
Conclusion:
Three of the studies used the same methodology, which shows reliability, which allows the IV of the actual factors to be responsible for the differing levels of conformity. Lacks ecological validity. With Asch's study being repeated so many times and many of the participants being psych students, there is a possibility of participants knowing the study - and therefore presenting demand characteristics. Overall however, the studies show the what factors contribute to levels of conformity. Conformity as part of the SCLOA shows how the social groups around us can change our viewpoint to a point where we change our own behavior to fit another groups common concepts.
Discuss factors influencing conformity
Intro: Conformity is a type of social influence in which individuals change their attitude/behaviour to adhere to existing social norms.
BP 1
Factor and Study:
Unanimity/majority influence – Asch
· Likelihood of conformity increases when everyone agrees to a point
· 123 male students from a college in the USA.
· 1 participant in a room with 6 confederates. Asked to indicate which of the 3 lines were the same as a standard line
· confederates gave consciously wrong answers on 12/18 trials
· genuine participants were always last to answer
· 76% of participants conformed on at least 1 trial, only 24% remained independent
Evaluation:
+ large participant pool, can generalise to wider population
+ Confederates were similar in age, sex, econ status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
+ one participant to six confederates – detailed and careful
- sample all male, all students, all American – cannot generalise
- 1950s outdated study – society which valued conformity
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception. Pressure to stay till the end because of pay. Asch said some were distressed & uncomfortable
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable
BP 2
Factor and Study: Ingroups – Abrams et al
Method:
· Replicated Asch’s study with psychology students using 3 confederates
· 1st condition: genuine participants made to believe confederates were also psychology students (ingroup)
· 100% of participants conformed at least once
· 2nd condition: participants believed confederates were history students (outgroup)
· 50% of participants conformed
· influenced by groups we feel a part of
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ supports theory
+ huge difference between two conditions, statistically significant
- assumes ingroup prejudice – correlational not causal
- all psych students – cannot generalise to other students
- Only students, cannot generalise to other groups of people (perhaps students are more easily influenced)
- pressure of experimenter
- ethics
BP 3
Factor and study: Self-esteem – Perrin and Spencer
Method:
· Exact replication of Asch’s experiment using British engineering, maths and chemistry students as participants
· Only 1 OUT OF 396 trials did someone conform!!!!
· Those with higher self esteem don’t feel the need to conform
· Makes Asch’s experiment unreliable
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory HUGELY
+ large participant pool
+ controlled, lab experiment
- assumes those in advanced professional fields have higher self-esteem than others
- all British, from 3 similar fields, cannot generalise
- ecological validity is lacking – may put value in lines with mathematical background
- DC - may have heard of Asch’s experiment
BP4
Factor and study: Culture - Bond and Smith
· Theory of cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
· Individualism: individual thoughts are encouraged, hence lower levels of conformity
· Collectivism: tendency to conform more easily because a harmony will be reached that way
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalised
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
Conclusion:
There are many factors that influence conformity. Each individual will show different levels due to these many factors. What you culture you are born into will effect levels of conformity, even your gender will shape how you adapt to the norm. Conformity can be manipulated in everyday life if people have knowledge on the factors influencing the levels, and they can be used to peoples advantage. Conformity can be negative as it compromises self opinion, however it can also reduce conflict of any scale.
BP 1
Factor and Study:
Unanimity/majority influence – Asch
· Likelihood of conformity increases when everyone agrees to a point
· 123 male students from a college in the USA.
· 1 participant in a room with 6 confederates. Asked to indicate which of the 3 lines were the same as a standard line
· confederates gave consciously wrong answers on 12/18 trials
· genuine participants were always last to answer
· 76% of participants conformed on at least 1 trial, only 24% remained independent
Evaluation:
+ large participant pool, can generalise to wider population
+ Confederates were similar in age, sex, econ status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
+ one participant to six confederates – detailed and careful
- sample all male, all students, all American – cannot generalise
- 1950s outdated study – society which valued conformity
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception. Pressure to stay till the end because of pay. Asch said some were distressed & uncomfortable
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable
BP 2
Factor and Study: Ingroups – Abrams et al
Method:
· Replicated Asch’s study with psychology students using 3 confederates
· 1st condition: genuine participants made to believe confederates were also psychology students (ingroup)
· 100% of participants conformed at least once
· 2nd condition: participants believed confederates were history students (outgroup)
· 50% of participants conformed
· influenced by groups we feel a part of
Evaluation:
+ controlled
+ supports theory
+ huge difference between two conditions, statistically significant
- assumes ingroup prejudice – correlational not causal
- all psych students – cannot generalise to other students
- Only students, cannot generalise to other groups of people (perhaps students are more easily influenced)
- pressure of experimenter
- ethics
BP 3
Factor and study: Self-esteem – Perrin and Spencer
Method:
· Exact replication of Asch’s experiment using British engineering, maths and chemistry students as participants
· Only 1 OUT OF 396 trials did someone conform!!!!
· Those with higher self esteem don’t feel the need to conform
· Makes Asch’s experiment unreliable
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory HUGELY
+ large participant pool
+ controlled, lab experiment
- assumes those in advanced professional fields have higher self-esteem than others
- all British, from 3 similar fields, cannot generalise
- ecological validity is lacking – may put value in lines with mathematical background
- DC - may have heard of Asch’s experiment
BP4
Factor and study: Culture - Bond and Smith
· Theory of cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
· Individualism: individual thoughts are encouraged, hence lower levels of conformity
· Collectivism: tendency to conform more easily because a harmony will be reached that way
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalised
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
Conclusion:
There are many factors that influence conformity. Each individual will show different levels due to these many factors. What you culture you are born into will effect levels of conformity, even your gender will shape how you adapt to the norm. Conformity can be manipulated in everyday life if people have knowledge on the factors influencing the levels, and they can be used to peoples advantage. Conformity can be negative as it compromises self opinion, however it can also reduce conflict of any scale.
Culture Norms
Examine the role of one/two cultural dimensions of behavior
Knowledge -
Intro:
· Cultural dimensions are psychological dimensions, values, morals and ethical concepts that are used to describe and characterize a particular culture and the way it behaves
· Geert Hofstede identified 5 major cultural dimensions
· The two being discussed are:
· Long term/short term orientation (LTO) (also known as Confucian dynamism and time orientation)
· Distinguishing between eastern and western ways of thinking
· Concentrates on the extent to which different cultures support delayed gratification of material, social and emotional needs.
· Those in higher scoring cultures showed a dynamic, future-oriented mentality with people who fulfill long-term social obligations
· Lower scoring cultures are seen as impatient, past and present-oriented and strive for immediate results
· Individualism/collectivism (IDV)
· When specific cultures socialize their members to develop identities that are either individually or collectively based
· Individualistic cultures: personal qualities are emphasized more than social, people are viewed as unique, priority with personal goals and strong emphasis on ‘I’
· Collectivist cultures: group opinion outweighs an individual opinion, group harmony is encouraged, people identify themselves based on group characteristics.
· STUDIES: LTO: Chen et al, Bond and Hofstede IDV: Petrova et al, Bond and Smith
BP 1 LTO
Study: Chen et al
· Hypothesis: western mentalities would place a higher value on immediate consumption and satisfaction, displaying STO, than the more patient Eastern countries who display LTO
· 147 bicultural participants in Singapore who were exposed to both S’pore (East) and USA (West) cultures
· Chen thought would affect behaviour depending on which was more actively represented in their mind at the time
· Half of pool were shown a collage of photos relevant to Singapore, other half shown photos relevant to USA
· Next, students asked to perform an online shopping task of purchasing a book – could either be delivered within four working days for standard fee or next day but with additional charges
· Chen found that the USA primed participants were willing to pay for faster delivery
· Singaporean-primed were satisfied with waiting
· Eastern cultures display STO, Western cultures display LTO
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory
+ large participant pool
+ bicultural (more reliable)
- lacks ecological validity
- could only represent USA and Singaporean culture, cannot be generalised to all E and W cultures
· Real life example: 2010 interview with Hofstede regarding G-20 conference in Seoul.
· Noticed that Americans tried to resolve financial crisis by printing more money, therefore getting people to spend more (STO) while Chinese tried to resolve crisis by telling people to save more (LTO)
BP 2 LTO
Study: Bond and Hofstede
· Questionnaire (Chinese Value Survey) with a non-Western bias, but with a Chinese culture bias
· Asking a number of Chinese social scientists to form a list of 10 basic values for Chinese people
· Questionnaire given to a number of people in 23 different countries including China
· E.g some questions included honouring ancestors and obedience and respect for parents
· Survey had a dimension called Confucian dynamism which refers to LTO and STO.
· Results: HK, Taiwan, Japan, SK and Singapore (five E economically leading countries) were in top 10 in reference to LTO.
· Results had a strong correlation to economic growth
· Reason behind economic success could be their LT outlook
Evaluation:
+ provided a correlation b/w economic growth and outlooks
+ ecologically valid
+ culturally varied
- no real proof of a casual link b/w the two (could be less reliable)
- 23 different countries and quality of questions could be lost in translation
- participants may feel conscious of answers relating to family etc
BP3: IDV
Study: Wei et al
· Form of a survey
· Find whether collectivism/individualism influenced conflict resolution style
· 600 managers in Singapore divided into four groups according to where they came from: America, Japan, China, Singapore.
· Results: managers who scored higher in individualism survey/test were less likely to avoid conflicts and rather assume a dominating position
· Managers scoring higher on collectivism were more likely to try and avoid conflicts
- Survey – demand characteristics/self-desirability bias
- Singapore has been so Westernised over the years that the working aspect of it is highly individualist, seen with the competitiveness in jobs/schools, however its core values remain collectivist, seen with respect and family (Asian culture). If the managers had been living in Singapore for a while, they may have adopted an individualist outlook in working regardless of where they are from. Therefore basing their individualism/collectivism partly off their countries of origin (survey is fine) may be highly inaccurate because society influences behaviour.
- Could just be correlational, not causal relationship
- Cultures cannot represent all individualist/collectivist cultures
+ Large participant pool
+ Fairly good range of countries to show individualism/collectivism as well as having the survey – methodological triangulation?
BP 4 IDV
Study: Smith and Bond
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalised
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
EXTRA STUDY #2:
Berry
· Modified experiment of Asch
· Participants: people from Temne culture (rely on agriculture and cooperation for survival) and people from Inuit culture (raised to be independent when hunting/fishing alone)
· Had to judge if length of 3 different cards matched another card. 6 confederates giving same wrong answer and then participants gave their answer.
· Temne cooperated a lot and conformed. In collectivist cultures it isn’t appreciated to deviate from norms and thus participants conformed
· Inuit were raised to stand up for themselves and gave the right answer no matter what others said
· Demonstrates how the cultural dimension affected and played a role in the behaviour of conformity.
+ If similar to Asch’s, confederates were similar in age, sex, econ status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
- Sample is just from these two cultures, cannot generalise to all IDV and CLV cultures
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception.
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable because factors more than IDV and CLV can influence conformity/behaviour
Conclusion:
· Cross-cultured participants
· Almost all ecologically valid
· Future research: no valuable info was lost in translation, other western countries other than USA should be used
· LTO could be more collectivist (both within E countries) and STO could be more individualistic (W countries)
- Research - Hofsteade (CT - all IBM employees, mindset must be different - don't know how they were associated with passport nationality, not equal amounts of employees from each countries), Berry, Smith and Bond
- The cultural dimension itself
Intro:
· Cultural dimensions are psychological dimensions, values, morals and ethical concepts that are used to describe and characterize a particular culture and the way it behaves
· Geert Hofstede identified 5 major cultural dimensions
· The two being discussed are:
· Long term/short term orientation (LTO) (also known as Confucian dynamism and time orientation)
· Distinguishing between eastern and western ways of thinking
· Concentrates on the extent to which different cultures support delayed gratification of material, social and emotional needs.
· Those in higher scoring cultures showed a dynamic, future-oriented mentality with people who fulfill long-term social obligations
· Lower scoring cultures are seen as impatient, past and present-oriented and strive for immediate results
· Individualism/collectivism (IDV)
· When specific cultures socialize their members to develop identities that are either individually or collectively based
· Individualistic cultures: personal qualities are emphasized more than social, people are viewed as unique, priority with personal goals and strong emphasis on ‘I’
· Collectivist cultures: group opinion outweighs an individual opinion, group harmony is encouraged, people identify themselves based on group characteristics.
· STUDIES: LTO: Chen et al, Bond and Hofstede IDV: Petrova et al, Bond and Smith
BP 1 LTO
Study: Chen et al
· Hypothesis: western mentalities would place a higher value on immediate consumption and satisfaction, displaying STO, than the more patient Eastern countries who display LTO
· 147 bicultural participants in Singapore who were exposed to both S’pore (East) and USA (West) cultures
· Chen thought would affect behaviour depending on which was more actively represented in their mind at the time
· Half of pool were shown a collage of photos relevant to Singapore, other half shown photos relevant to USA
· Next, students asked to perform an online shopping task of purchasing a book – could either be delivered within four working days for standard fee or next day but with additional charges
· Chen found that the USA primed participants were willing to pay for faster delivery
· Singaporean-primed were satisfied with waiting
· Eastern cultures display STO, Western cultures display LTO
Evaluation:
+ Supports theory
+ large participant pool
+ bicultural (more reliable)
- lacks ecological validity
- could only represent USA and Singaporean culture, cannot be generalised to all E and W cultures
· Real life example: 2010 interview with Hofstede regarding G-20 conference in Seoul.
· Noticed that Americans tried to resolve financial crisis by printing more money, therefore getting people to spend more (STO) while Chinese tried to resolve crisis by telling people to save more (LTO)
BP 2 LTO
Study: Bond and Hofstede
· Questionnaire (Chinese Value Survey) with a non-Western bias, but with a Chinese culture bias
· Asking a number of Chinese social scientists to form a list of 10 basic values for Chinese people
· Questionnaire given to a number of people in 23 different countries including China
· E.g some questions included honouring ancestors and obedience and respect for parents
· Survey had a dimension called Confucian dynamism which refers to LTO and STO.
· Results: HK, Taiwan, Japan, SK and Singapore (five E economically leading countries) were in top 10 in reference to LTO.
· Results had a strong correlation to economic growth
· Reason behind economic success could be their LT outlook
Evaluation:
+ provided a correlation b/w economic growth and outlooks
+ ecologically valid
+ culturally varied
- no real proof of a casual link b/w the two (could be less reliable)
- 23 different countries and quality of questions could be lost in translation
- participants may feel conscious of answers relating to family etc
BP3: IDV
Study: Wei et al
· Form of a survey
· Find whether collectivism/individualism influenced conflict resolution style
· 600 managers in Singapore divided into four groups according to where they came from: America, Japan, China, Singapore.
· Results: managers who scored higher in individualism survey/test were less likely to avoid conflicts and rather assume a dominating position
· Managers scoring higher on collectivism were more likely to try and avoid conflicts
- Survey – demand characteristics/self-desirability bias
- Singapore has been so Westernised over the years that the working aspect of it is highly individualist, seen with the competitiveness in jobs/schools, however its core values remain collectivist, seen with respect and family (Asian culture). If the managers had been living in Singapore for a while, they may have adopted an individualist outlook in working regardless of where they are from. Therefore basing their individualism/collectivism partly off their countries of origin (survey is fine) may be highly inaccurate because society influences behaviour.
- Could just be correlational, not causal relationship
- Cultures cannot represent all individualist/collectivist cultures
+ Large participant pool
+ Fairly good range of countries to show individualism/collectivism as well as having the survey – methodological triangulation?
BP 4 IDV
Study: Smith and Bond
· Carried out meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies that all used Asch’s experiment
· Studies carried out in 17 countries: USA, Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Hong Kong, Fijiu, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Ghana, Brazil, Kuwait and Lebanon
· Findings were extremely consistent
· Those in collectivistic countries had conformed more often as they value conformity (promotes a supportive group relationship and reduces conflict)
· Individualistic countries conformed less.
Evaluation:
+ relationship between conforming and individualism/collectivism of a culture
+ reliable analysis because large number of studies to support it
+ wide range of countries – culturally varied
+ emic approach to Asch’s experiment, which was originally etic and therefore could not be generalised
- broke ethical guidelines (unaware and deception)
- results may not be accurate as demand characteristics may be shown
EXTRA STUDY #2:
Berry
· Modified experiment of Asch
· Participants: people from Temne culture (rely on agriculture and cooperation for survival) and people from Inuit culture (raised to be independent when hunting/fishing alone)
· Had to judge if length of 3 different cards matched another card. 6 confederates giving same wrong answer and then participants gave their answer.
· Temne cooperated a lot and conformed. In collectivist cultures it isn’t appreciated to deviate from norms and thus participants conformed
· Inuit were raised to stand up for themselves and gave the right answer no matter what others said
· Demonstrates how the cultural dimension affected and played a role in the behaviour of conformity.
+ If similar to Asch’s, confederates were similar in age, sex, econ status – in reality we conform to peers
+ controlled – answers of confederates, group size: establish cause + effect. Had a control condition where confederates would give the correct answer – shows the task is easy and thus incorrect answers were down to conformity not difficulty in task.
+ Increases validity
+ standard procedure, easy to replicate
- Sample is just from these two cultures, cannot generalise to all IDV and CLV cultures
- low in ecological validity, artificial environment (lab)
- unethical – true nature of experiment was not revealed: deception.
- study replicated showing different results (Perrin & Spencer) – unreliable because factors more than IDV and CLV can influence conformity/behaviour
Conclusion:
· Cross-cultured participants
· Almost all ecologically valid
· Future research: no valuable info was lost in translation, other western countries other than USA should be used
· LTO could be more collectivist (both within E countries) and STO could be more individualistic (W countries)
- uncover the assumptions - cultural dimensions and society are influencing out behavior - the prinicple
- what we are born into will affect so many things: how we will get treated for disorders, how we act in relationships, how we are in groups