SOCIOCULTURAL LOA

Evaluate SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY, making reference to relevant studies.

Key Concepts: Social Categorization Social Identity Social Comparison Positive Distinctiveness

We all strive for positive self-concept, our thinking in groups supports this desire.

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION: dividing social environments into in-groups and out-groups. Out-group homogeneity

SOCIAL IDENTITY: part of our self-concept that is based on membership in groups (identifying self as a group member – not an individual)

SOCIAL COMPARISON – process of comparing our group to other groups. Tied to POSITIVE DISTINCTIVENESS – the desire to show our group is better.

Tying it all together

Principle of SCOLA suggests we have a tendency to form groups. Part of group formation is categorization. If we are group members that helps to define who we are. If we are members in groups, and categorize them – we also have a desire for positive self-concept.

Desire for positive self-concept can lead to: Ethnocentrism In-group favoritism Stereotypical thinking Conformity to in-group norms

RESEARCH

TAJFEL (1971) Assigned boys to groups. Boys then played a game where

they assigned points to other people – members of their own group vs. members of out-groups.

Participants showed a tendency toward maximizing point distinction.

SHERIF (1954) – Robber’s Cave Study Field experiment – researchers created two groups from

teenage boys that did not know each other. Each group had bonded, and then competed with the other. Led to aggressive behavior against the out-group.

RESEARCH

YUKI ET AL (2005) Compared American and Japanese students in a “money

sharing” game. American students trusted in-group members far more than any others; Japanese students trusted in-group and potentially connected member more.

CASTANO and GINER-SOROLLA(2006) Hypothetical/historical scenarios where participants were

asked to judge humanity of a group that experienced tragedy through connection to the participant’s in-group. Participants tended to “infrahumanize” when the tragedy was the direct result of the actions of their in-groups.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EVALUATE?

STRENGTHS

Research supports the theory.

Theory can be used to explain other phenomena – like stereotyping.

LIMITATIONS

Does the theory predict behavior? Or just explain it after the fact? Are there some cases

when personal identity is stronger than group identity?

Too reductionist? Other environmental factors than group identity may impact behavior.

Explain SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, making reference to two relevant studies.

Combines behavioral (operant conditioning) learning theories with cognition; direct and indirect learning. Observational learning – learning by observing and

imitating others. Reinforcement can be cognitive – perceived in others or

expected through reasoning.

Social Learning Theory is BIDIRECTIONAL Learning is in a cultural context – so the theory is

culturally relevant!

Key Concepts - Modeling

Factors required for learning Attention – pay attention to model Retention – remember the behavior Motor reproduction – be able to reproduce it Motivation – have the desire to reproduce

Factors to influence motivation Identification with model Reinforcement Liking the model

Key Concept – Self Efficacy

One’s belief in ability to accomplish goals / complete a task. Important cognitive aspect of social learning theory – key

to the motivation aspect of imitating a modeled behavior.

Bandura – Bobo Doll Studies 1961 Study

Children observed either an aggressive adult or a non-aggressive adult in a room. Children were then taken to another room – frustrated – then put in a room with toys for observation.

Those exposed to an aggressive model were significantly more aggressive. Boys more so than girls, and those exposed to a same-sex aggressive model were more so as well.

1965 Study Children view recording of adults acting aggressively.

Conditions: 1. Just shown video 2. Adult rewarded after behavior 3. Adult punished after behavior.

Groups 1 and 2 exhibited more aggressive behavior, but when all groups were reinforced, they all acted aggressively.

Alternative studies

Gergely et al (2002) 14 month old babies observe adults turn on a lightbox

with their foreheads (hands were available) – 70% repeated.

Other group observed same behavior but with hands occupied – 21% repeated.

Charlton et al (2002) – St. Helena study TV first introduced in 1995 – observed behavior of kids

aged 3-8 on playgrounds before and after TV introduced. No increase in anti-social behavior was observed – even

after 5 years exposure.

Biological explanation

Mirror neurons – nerve cells responsible for a specific movement that fire when we observe another moving in that same way. May also be active when decoding the intention of

another. Iacoboni et al (2005) – higher brain activation in a

known mirror neuron area when participants were asked to interpret intentions of others in a video clip.

Discuss the use of compliance techniques

Conformity vs. Compliance Indirect pressure vs. direct pressure to follow the majority

“Yielding to social pressure in one’s public behavior, even though private beliefs may not have changed”

Compliance Technique: ways in which individuals are influenced to comply with the demands of others.

Factors that influence compliance

1. Authority – individual requesting (think Milgram)

2. Commitment – prior agreement

3. Liking – based on the individual requesting

4. Reciprocity – need to return the favor

5. Scarcity – “rare” opportunities can’t be missed

6. Social proof – buy into compliance when others exhibit the behavior

Technique: Foot in the door

Ask a small request of another (one they are almost certain to accept), then ask a larger request of that person (that they likely would not have accepted at first). Commitment is a key component Freedman and Fraser (1966) – “drive safe” signs – 17% vs.

76%

Petrova et al (2007) – individualism vs. collectivism and compliance Asian internationals – 10%....44% Americans – 8% …. 69%

Technique: Door in the face

Request something large from an individual – something they are likely to turn down – then reduce that request to something smaller (what was desired in the first place). Reciprocity is a key component Cialdini et al (1975) – will you volunteer to chaperone a

trip to the zoo (17% agree) vs. first ask to volunteer weekly for two years, then decrease (50% agree).

Technique: Lowballing

Make an offer less attractive after a person has already agreed to it. Commitment is key component Cialdini et al (1974) – ask students to participate in study:

7am vs. no time at first 24% vs. 56% - then when told the time 95% still show

up

Evaluate research on conformity to group norms

Sherif (1935) – what was it?

Asch (1951) – what was it?

Abrams et al (1990) – Asch paradigm using a psychology student participant in a group of other psychology students vs. history students. 100% conformed at least once in the psych group 50% conformed at least once in the history group

Explanations of conformity

Informational Social Influence

Normative Social Influence

Referent Informational Influence – conformity has more to do with in-group norms. We conform out of a sense of belonging (we don’t conform to other people, but to a norm).

Evaluation – Asch Paradigm

Strengths

Replicated many times Space, time, observer

triangulation!

Weaknesses

Artificiality

Ecological validity

Ethical considerations

Bias in interpretation?

Gender inconsistency

Looks only at the individual process, not the group.

Discuss factors influencing conformity

1. Culture

2. Group size

3. Group agreement

4. Minority opinion

Culture

Using the Asch paradigm, levels of conformity have decreased in the US since the 1950s

Collectivist cultures tend to have higher rates of conformity

Matsuda (1985) – tried to explain why there were lower levels of conformity in Japan than US Female students were placed in differing level intimacy groups

– using a modified Asch paradigm. Most conformity the result of normative comparisons – highest

in the seken group Context is key in Japanese culture

Group Factors Conformity higher in:

Larger groups, in-groups, high ambiguity situations

Size – Asch (1955) one confederate: 3%; 2 confed.: 14%; 3 confed: 32%

Agreement Unanimity was an important factor – if there was any

dissenter conformity dropped to almost nothing

Minority opinions: Moscovici and Lage (1976) Four participants and two confederates – confederates

said a blue/green color was green Minority was able to influence majority members to

change opinion about 1/3 of the time.