Corken not Milner

1. Outline principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, the social and cultural environment influences individual behavior; we want connectedness with, and a sense of belonging to, others; we construct our conceptions of the individual and social self). Outline = Give a brief account or summary of something.a) Principle #1: The social and cultural environment influences individual behavior

i. Explanation of principle (be sure to name drop at least one study)1. Social and cultural = bigger picture for psychologists (realized it was not

only biological and cognitive factors that influences behavior) 2. Social environment: interaction with others 3. Cultural environment: background (where you come from): legacy –

passed on from different generations 4. Name drop study: Tajfel

a. Social environment: categorization factor (forming groups) – causes behavior to change (groups influence ones behavior)

5. Deindividuation: loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity

a. Social environment influences behavior i. Situational: Zimbardo (Stanford Prison Experiment): the

situation in which participants were exposed to influences their behavior (social roles)

6. Stereotypes are evolutionary (cultural)a. Identify what and who are dangerous (survival of the fittest)b. In-group vs outgroup c. Often taught by parents (children listen since parents are very

powerful figures in a child’s life – authority figures) – passed down to different generations

d. Stereotype threat: from empirical studies, stereotype threat can affect the members of just about any social or cultural group (if they believe in the stereotype)

i. Why some racial or social group believe they are more or less intelligent than others (harms performance)

7. Implicit attitudes:a. Cultureb. Grow up believing this group is bad/groupc. Formulated opinions (generation to generation)

i. Associated with the evolutionary aspect of sterotypes 8. Cultrual differences in self-serving bias

a. Page 106 textbook

b) Principle #2: We want connectedness with, and a sense of belonging to others i. Explanation of principle (be sure to name drop at least one study)

1. Name drop study: Tajfela. Social Identity (forming individual identity of group) – wanting to

be part of the group b. In-group bias

i. Favoring the in-group rather than the outgroup ii. Outgroup people are viewed more negatively and given

worse treatment iii. Dangerous (prejudice and discrimination)iv. Kelly 2007 concluded that in-group bias is due to nurture

(babies at 9 white babies months were only exposed to white persons)

c. Social identity theory

i. Persons sense of who they are based on their group membership

ii. Ones value and emotional significance attached to this membership

2. Explain how principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis may be demonstrated in research (that is, theories and/or studies). Explain = Give a detailed account including reasons and causes.a) What is the principle you will define? The social and cultural environment influences

individual behavior b) How was it demonstrated through research (name drop at least one study)

3. *Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, participant/naturalistic observation, interviews, case studies). Discuss = Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range or arguments,

factors or hypotheses. Conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence

a) Research method #1: Experiments b) What study will you use?c) How is it used in SCLOA?

a. Dependent variable: the variable being tested/measuredb. Independent variable: the variable influencing the tested (dependent variable)c. Controlled: maintained variable to ensure not other external factors influence the

resultsd. Hypothesis: scientific guess/prediction)

d) Why is it used in SCLOA (why is this RM important to use in SCLOA – this is the critical thinking piece!!!)?

a. Determine the cause-effect relationship (clearly identify the social or cultural factor that is directly related to a behavior, rather than just a correlation)

b. SCLOA looks at the bigger picture of psychology (the social and cultural environments are very broad aspects (unlike BLOA – e.g. localization) = useful to specifically determine a specific cause from the broad range of possible explanations of a behavior)

c. Study psychological phenomena’s in an objective, empirical (ability to obtain quantitative data), and analytical way

d. Generalize the results to larger populations (social and cultural aspects are very broad, talking about how the whole world may influence just one person’s behavior, thus, it allows researchers to generalize their findings to a larger extent than other RM’s (e.g. case studies) – although, there is he ecological validity factor to consider)

e) Research method #2f) What study will you use?g) How is it used in SCLOA?h) Why is it used in SCLOA (why is this RM important to use in SCLOA – again, critical

thinking!)?

4. *Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of ethical considerations related to specific research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis.

Ethical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (guidelines not followed)

Discussion of ethical considerations may include, but is not limited to: o why deception is used o the difficulties of ensuring confidentiality in social psychology research o the role of informed consent when studying groups o decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed o changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines.

Candidates may discuss two ethical considerations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of ethical considerations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Candidates may refer to one study in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may refer to a larger number of studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

More than one ethical consideration Relate them to research studies from the sociocultural level of analysis

a) Ethical consideration #1: Protection from harm (mental and physical harm)b) How is it relevant to SCLOA?c) What study can be used here (remember: doesn’t need to be a case that violated the

guideline!)?o How and where did you bring in your critical thinking? Was this “enough”?

d) Ethical consideration #2:e) How is it relevant to SCLOA?f) What study can be used here?

o How and where did you bring in your critical thinking? Was this “enough”? 5. Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behavior.

a) Attribution theory: people try to explain what’s going on around them and other peoples behavior

b) Situational: environment

c) Dispositional: internal factors, personality, biological factors who you are as a person causes you to do this

i. Dispositional factors are constantly blamed in situations rather than situational (when in reality, it is most commonly situational that is to blame)

d) Why is there a difference:i. Completely different influences on behavior

ii. Dispositional: internal factorsiii. Situational: the situation, external environment iv. Attribution = we want to understand what makes us do what we do (want to

explain our own and others behavior)

S Stanley Milgram ExperimentA To investigate the extent to which people would follow an authoritive figure (study on

obedience)M 40 males (20-50 years old)

Participants were tasked to inflict electric shocks on a confederate of the study (was not actually shocked)

Confederates were tasked to answer questions, and the more questions they had got wrong, the shock intensity would increase

Researchers had described this experiment to 40 other psychiatrists and asked them to predict results (believed that less than 1% would administer all 30 levels of shock)

R No participant had stopped before the wall pounding 5/40 stopped after wall pounding 14/40 (35%) deified before the full series of shocks 26/40 (65%) administered all 30 levels of shock The participants whom has shocked the confederate – had groaned, bit their

lips, trembled, sweated, and stutteredC The participants would listen to their authority and (situational: authoritive figure)

and go against their own conscious (dispositional: obedience toward the researcher) Social conventions influence behavior

E No psychological exam of participants (might have dispositional issues that influence the results)

Cross cultural (repeated experiments) Martell (1971) = 85% obedience until the end (German males) Kilham and Mann (1974) = 16% obedience until the end (Australian females)

Unethical: Participants were forced to violently shock other people (mental trauma) In this situation, participants would even laugh Participants were in a state of conflict (stressful situation) (until this day,

participants still recall such a traumatic experiment) Agitation Deception: were not told that the ‘participants’ being shocked were actually

confederates and were not actually shockedResearchers were very forceful and demanding (potential harm)

“I’m responsible for anything to happen…” “Continue please…” “NO ANSWER = WRONG!”

Participants shocked them again, no answer or fight back from confederates made participants assume they were dead (silent)

S Stanford Prison Experiment – Philip Zimbardo (1972)A To investigate how people respond to authority and to investigate how the situation

(environmental factors) influence behaviorM Stanford students

Newspaper ad ‘Interview’ (deceived participants into believing that they would get a certain

role based on their interview results) When in reality: just a coin toss determined whether a participant was a guard

or a prisonerR C The researchers explanations:

Social roles and schema influence the participants behavior (we know how _____ is supposed to act; new participants: actually became the person (their role))

Intelligence, world views and personality traits did not influence their behavior (these are dispositional factors – we tend to blame dispositional, although the situational factors in this study is what had influenced the participants’ behaviors

Situational factor: social roles (group behavior: deindividuation: loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal)Dispositional factor: schema (we know how a prison guard vs. a prisoner is supposed to act)

E 1. Interviews and a criminal background was used to test for dispositional factors

(maintain a controlled variable – no variables influencing the results)2. Unethical:

- Deception: interviews did not actually determine their role- Mental and physical harm: by guards on the prisoners

e) Attribution theory:i. Attaching/connecting meaning to others or our own behavior

ii. Internal attribution: dispositional factors 1. When explaining the behavior of OTHERS = look for enduring internal

attributions (e.g. personality traits)iii. External attribution: situational factors (assigning behavior to an external event

outside a person’s control) 1. When explaining our OWN behavior = tend to make external attributions

(environment factors)f) Why do we do this?

i. Makes us feel better about ourselvesii. Make us feel like the world is a better place

1. It is not our own fault for a specific behavior (especially if it is negative)2. For others, it is their fault and nothing around me will influence me in the

same way g) Conclusion linking back and explicitly answering the prompt

i. Milgram:1. Situational: authoritive figure (researcher)2. Dispositional: obedience toward the researcher

ii. Zimbardo:1. Situational: social roles (group behavior: deindividuation)2. Dispositional: schema

6. *Discuss two errors in attributionsa) What is attribution

i. Concept that people make sense of their surroundings on the basis of what they consider is the cause of behavior (explaining someone’s or your own behavior) - attach meaning to other’s and our own behavior

ii. Internal attribution: dispositional (enduring internal characteristics, e.g. personality, motives, beliefs)

iii. External attribution: situational (outside environment, outside a person’s control)

iv. Humans have a need to understand WHY things happen v. Different cultures/people have different ways of attributing causes to

events/behavior vi. Attributing own behavior – attribute it to situational factors (its not me that’s

the problem, its an external force that I have no control over (makes people feel better about themselves)

vii. Attributing others behavior – attribute it to dispositional factors (its not something that can affect me too, there is just something internally right/wrong with that person)

viii. WHY PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO

b) What does it mean to have an error in attributioni. Wrongly interpret the WHY to something

ii. Attributions are derived from observations – leads to illogical conclusions, misinterpretations

c) Fundamental attribution errori. Tend to point out dispositional factors rather than situational (overlook

situation)ii. Overestimate dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors in an

individuals behavior

d) Causes of the Fundamental attribution error:i. People tend to think of themselves as adaptable, flexible and every-changing

(do not like to think of themselves as a specific “type” of person). ii. Although, when people look at others, they do not have enough information to

make a balanced decision, so they result in making dispositional attributions (easier, faster – placing the blame on the individual and not the outside – people are responsible for their actions)

1. When people consider their own behavior, they tend to think they would have acted differently under different circumstances (focus only on the situation)

S Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross et al. (1977)A To determine whether student participants would make the fundamental attribution

error even when they knew that all the actors were simply playing a roleM 18 male and female students from Stanford University

Participants randomly assigned to one of three roles:- Game show host- Contestants on the game show- Members of the audience

Game show hosts = design their own questions to test general knowledgeContestants = answerAudience: watched the game showAll participants were aware that everyone was just playing a role

When the game show was over: observers were asked to rank the intelligence of the people who had taken part

R Game show host was constantly ranked as the most intelligent (even though they knew that this person was randomly assigned to this position and he/she had even written the questions)

C Participants whom ranked intelligence failed to attribute the role to the person’s situation (being allowed to actually ask the questions) and instead attributed the persons performance to dispositional factors (intelligence)

Participants made the fundamental attribution error Failed to acknowledge the situational factors

E Reflects what we see in everyday life:

People with social power usually initiate and control conversations Knowledge concerning a particular topic can give others the impression that

they are knowledgeable on a large range of other topics as well

Problematic sample:

All student participants = not generalizable, small sample (although were both

male and female)- University students spend their days listening to professors who

are seen as authorities (cannot be sure that this response to authority figures who ask questions and give answers is not a learned response rather than an attribution error)

- See professors as more intelligent (link to host)

Had informed consent and few ethical concerns

e) Self-serving bias i. When people take credit for their successes, attributing them to dispositional

factors (makes people feel good about themselves; e.g. pass a test: I am so smart)

ii. For failers, people tend to dissociate dispositional factors rather attribute situational factors (it wasn’t me, it was uncontrollable external factors to blame; e.g. fail the test: my teacher is not good at teaching)

f) Causes of Self-serving bias:i. Maintain self-esteem

ii. Attribute success to dispositional = high self-esteem iii. Attribute failures to factors beyond our control = protect self-esteem

g) Cognitive factors and self-serving biasi. Miller and Ross (1975)

1. Expect to succeed and do succeed = attribute to skill and ability (dispositional)

2. Expect to succeed and do not succeed = attribute to bad luck and external factors that caused the unexpected outcome (situational)

3. Expect to not do well and do not do well = attribute to dispositional4. Expect to fail and succeed = attribute success to external factors (e.g.

luck)h) Threats: e.g.

i. depressed people make dispositional attributions (blame themselves for feeling miserable)

S Johnson et al. (1964)A To investigate self-serving bias in student tutorsM Participants were instructed to teach 4th grade boys arithmetic concepts

Psychology students were the ones being tested for self-serving bias Psychology students taught 2 children each how to multiply numbers by 10

and 20 Teaching = via one-way intercom After each phase (multiply by 10, multiply by 20), worksheets were made

available to participants to asses children’s learning progressWorksheets were made in a way that:

Student A: gave all correct answers on both sheets Student B

- Did poorly on both sheets (participant failed in teaching)- Did poorly on the first sheet and improved on the second

(participant succeeded in teaching)-asked to account for the students’ performance: who was responsible

R Participants attributed student B’s improved performance to their abilities as a teacher

Participants attributed student B’s failure to the students lack of abilityC When attributing students learning progress, teachers demonstrated self-serving

bias to enhance and protect the image of their own ability Proved SSB

Successful students = teachers attribute it to dispositional factors (teaching ability) –

associate themselves to internal factors = positiveUnsuccessful students = teachers attribute to situational factors (external to themselves) = child’s ability = dissociate our self from failure protect self-esteem

E Lacks ecological validity:

Cannot be generalized to real life situations Artificial environment

Participants: Psychology students = not representative sample (psychology students should be aware of SSB but still made the error)

7. *Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.

a) What is Social Identity theory: i. Tajfel

ii. Assumes that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem (based on their personal or social identities)

iii. Indicates the importance of social belonging iv. Form groups around you v. 4 key points:

1. Social Categorization (forming groups)2. Social Identity (forming an individual identify of the group)3. Social Comparison (In group and Out group)

a. Self-esteem is maintained b. Can lead to discrimination toward the out-group

4. Positive Distinctiveness (differentiate from other groups)a. More positive towards anything that your own group represents b. In group bias

S Social Identity Theory – Henri Tajfel (1970) – Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination

A To test behavior of an individual towards both other in-group members and outgroup members

M 64 school boys aged 14-15 years old, all went to the same school, same year group and same school “house” team

Part 1:Participants were divided into 2 groups, allegedly based on how they scored on a series of tests on visual judgement (how many dots flashed on a screen)

1st condition:o Matrices were shown, Top and bottom lines represented different

unspecified members of their group. 2nd condition:

o Matrices were shown, Top and bottom lines represented different unspecified members of another group.

3rd condition:o Matrices were shown, the top line representing the amount of money

that would be given to an unspecified group mate, and the bottom line representing the amount of money that would be given to an unspecified member of another group.

There were six matrices, repeated three times; one for each of the three conditions.No choices of the matrix allowed an equal amount to be given to both boys, and that the inverse of each option was available. Eg. (3|24) and (24|3)

Part 2:Participants were divided into 2 groups, allegedly based on their preference towards

to the paintings of painters, forming the “Klee group” and the “Kandinsky group”Matrices were shown to the participants, this time, they had situations that gave “maximum joint profit” (both groups gained a lot), “maximum in-group profit” (their group gained the maximum possible amount) or “maximum difference” (extreme high amount versus extreme low amount).

R Prioritize high difference over high points (wanted higher difference than the other group, not higher/more points)

Outgroup was rated as less likeable, but was never actually dislikedC Part 1:

The study showed that in the first 2 conditions, the points were distributed fairly. The third condition of the experiment showed that a large majority of the participants allocated significantly more points to the in-group than the out group.

Part 2:The study found that when given the option for “maximum joint profit” and “maximum in-group profit” the boys opted for the latter. The results also showed that the boys were much more interested in creating a large gap between the two groups rather than gaining a greater amount for everybody.

Absence of competition = social comparisons does not necessarily produce a negative outcome

E Gender – all male participants were used, results could vary for females and/or mix of both.

Generalizability - experiment was repeated with multiple trials, but only 64 participants were used which is not a lot in order to generalize behaviour.

Ethics – deception was used to establish a difference between the in-group and the out-group. This may lead to discrimination of the outgroup even after the experiment since the participants were in the same school, class and house.

Culture – Participants were from Bristol, England only. Results may vary when using people from different places/cultures.

Alternative Explanations – prior relationships between participants is unknown but evident as they go to the same school and are in the same grade and house, this may have affected the results of the experiment.

Strengths: Empirical evidence: research to support the theory (in-group and outgroup) Application and Predictive validity’s: understanding behavior: ethnocentrism (belief that

one’s group is superior), stereotyping (in-group biases), conformity to in-group social norms, attitudes toward (especially implicit attitudes) the out-group, assists in explaining discrimination, etc.

Testable: 2 trials (part 1 and part 2) were conducted to validate the previous part of the study; experiment (can be replicated) – standardized procedure

Construct validity: measurable (matrix system)

Weaknesses: Construct validity: artificiality (the results that these boys choose in the matrix may

not necessarily occur in real life situations) Construct validity: only focuses on the dispositional (internal factors) that influences

the in-groups and out-groups (does not take situational events into consideration) Predictive validity: cannot fully explain the reason as to why ingroup bias often results

in discriminatory and violent behavior toward the outgroup (vague – the theory only has the ability to state that there is a positive distinctiveness change, although does

not explain the WHY aspect) – describes, bit does not fully predict behavior – e.g. why is it in some cases our personal identity is stronger than our group identity?

Unbiased: small sample; all from the same school, same house team, all males, etc.

S Sherif et al. (1961)A To study informal groups and observe the natural development of group

organization, attitudes and group normsM 22 boys, aged 11-12

None of the boys knew each other before the study The researchers organizes a regular summer camp in the Robbers Cave State

Park in Oklahoma with camp staff so that the boys did not know that they were taking part in an experiment

Researchers collected data by making written records of the observed beahvior, as well as sometimes using cameras and microphones.

Stage 1: (group bonding – in-group bias) Boys were housed in the same house and could choose their own friends After a few days, the researchers divided the boys into two groups and they

separated “best friends” so that they were not in the same group Boys participated in a range of challenging activities (such as hikes, campouts,

athletics and sports) in this period The hierarchy of each group happened They maintained social control by mocking boys who did not perform well at

task (social comparison) Each group selected a symbol and name (social identity) which was put on

their baseball caps and T-shirts The groups call themselves “The Eagles” and “The Rattlers” Researchers invented a game to test if favoritism will take place when boys

were asked to evaluate each other’s performance

Stage 2: (introduced groups to each other – competition for resources – winner and loser - tension)

Researchers introduced conflict through games The games started well although the boys soon called each other names such

as “stinkers” and “cheaters” The boys refused contact with the opposing group and they even turned

against their previous friends The boys also gave negative ratings to boys in the other group (social

comparison and positive distinctiveness)

Stage 3: (cooperation to solve problem – team building- liked each other a lot more than before)

Researchers wanted to bring the conflict between the groups to a stop Trying to harmonize the groups was not successful so they had developed

another hypothesis that working together to reach a common goal would encourage a positive relationship between the groups

Created situations such as making the camp truck break down during an outing

Boys had to cooperate to pull the truck Eased the tension between the two groups

R Stage 1: The boys consistently overestimated efforts of highly regarded boys and

underestimated the efforts of lowly regarded boys. The researchers asked each boy to name his friends in the group, and the boy

who was chosen the most time was regarded as having the highest status. The boy who was chosen the least was seen as having the lowest status.

Stage 2:This confirmed that conflict and negative attitudes between groups can arise from group identity and fighting for resources.

Stage 3:The boys ended up having new friends from the other group and they cooperated. This resulted in less negative ratings of the other group and there was no longer any intergroup hostility.

C This study shows how social hierarchies naturally develop in groups. It also shows how easily competition can lead to conflict between groups and how common goals can break down the barriers and reduce hostility between competing groups.

E The measures of social behaviour that were introduced were part of real-life situations which assured a high degree of ecological validity. However, because it was a field experiment, the researchers could not control many of the variables. Another limitation is a question as to how the dependent variable was actually measured. It was not possible to actually confirm that the levels of hostility were actually as the researchers reported. However, in measuring the level of hostility after the goal, the results could be done to demand characteristics. It could also be argued that there are ethical issues in this study as the research brought about conflict between the groups. However, the results of this study justified the use of deception and the procedure since the boys were eventually reconciled. It could also be argued that what they experienced could happen in everyday life. It also can’t be generalized due to the fact that they only used males and young boys as the participants.

Artificial scenario

Strengths: Testable: different scenarios; real life situations (artificial although participants believed

it through deception that it was a real life camp) Predictive validity: understand what can be done about the tension between groups Predictive validity = took into account the situational aspects of the theory (how the

situation influences the behaviors or the groups) Empirical: support the theory

Weaknesses: Unbiased – only focused on one culture (conducted in the same country) Construct validity – not measurable (in this study), only observable Construct validity – reductionist (reduce the complex idea into simpler terms: big to

small) – there are different factors that affect the process of interaction (e.g. situational factors) – not always useful to look at the smaller bits, but look at it as a whole (e.g the situation itself, the interaction; fails to address the environment that interacts with the “self”) – e.g. cultural expectations, rewards as motivators, and societal constraints may play more of a role in behavior than one’s own sense of in-group identity

o It cannot only be the identity aspect within the group that influences a person’s behavior, rather there are other external factors that may influence behavior = very narrow theory

Predictive validity: considers and predicts group behavior and not individual behavior (vague, broad)

8. Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behavior. Explain: Give reasons and causes for a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

a) What are stereotypes?i. Broad generalized idea or image of a particular type of person or thing

(oversimplified) ii. Not always negative and not necessarily true

iii. Often an opinion and not a fact iv. Used to categorize people (why? simple, what we grow up to believe)v. Derived from our schema (mental framework/organization)

b) How are stereotypes formed?i. Heuristics (short-cut for problem solving/discovery)

1. Representative heuristic: judging the likelihood of things in terms of how well they seem to represent or match a prototype (lead us to ignore other relevant information)

2. Availability heuristic: estimating the likelihood of events based on their availability in memory (if instances come readily to mind - perhaps because of their vividness – we presume such events are common (how often it seems to happen vs. how often it actually

3. Heuristics guide stereotypes 4. Benefit = not time consuming5. Cost = not very accurate 6. We often see what we want to see

7. Confirmation bias – tendency to search for information that supports our perceptions and ignore or distort contradictory evidence

8. Shortcut for stereotypes: very time consuming to identiy and formulate opinions and facts on every single person; hence generalized ideas are used as a shortcut for these opinions or facts

ii. Social Identity Theory (social categorization)1. In group and Out group 2. Often formulate negative ideas about the outgroup (often leads to

discrimination) and positive distinctiveness for the in-groupiii. Genetic Wiring (evolution)

1. Determining whether something is dangerous a. Not necessarily true (just generalizations) – what to stay away

from, we spread this ‘knowledge’ to other people in hopes that they also avoid this group, person or thing

2. In group vs. Out groupIn-group bias:

3. Nature vs. Nurture (both)a. Kelly 2007

i. 3 month old Caucasian infants able to recognize Caucasian, Asian and Blacks

ii. At 6 months: only recognize Caucasian and Asians iii. At 9 months: only recognize white people iv. Conclusion: this is due to nurture, exposure to white people

only b. We fight for our in-group

i. Willing to do favorsii. Forgive mistakes

iii. Only focus on the positive aspects of the in group, ignore the negative aspects

c. In-group bias leads to stereotypes:i. Focus only on the negative stereotypes of the outgroup

ii. Propaganda d. E.g. women favor and show a more automatic in-group bias than

men i. Rudman and Goodwin (2004)

1. Nurture aspect (females want this)2. Men = more competitive

iv. Implicit Attitudes (not obvious, but implied attitudes – an attitude that is outside the conscious awareness and control)

1. How people think about people, things, etc. 2. Is often displayed through behavior

a. Richard LaPiere 1934i. Roadtrip across USA with a Chinese coupd (time of high

racism) and went to 184 restaurants and were turned away from none

ii. 6 months later, LaPiere surveyed those 184 restaurants, 50% response rate and of that 50%, 90% said they won’t serve Asian people

1. Why?a. Wanted to fit it b. At that time, the Chinese couple were with an

authority figure (white person)2. Follow up:

a. D.S. Wallace (2005)i. 797 attitude behavior studies wit 0.41

(41%) correlation (attitude-behavior)ii. In high pressure situations, only 3%

correlation

b. Project implicit:i. 80% negative implicit attitude about elderly (from both the

elderly and the young)ii. 75% whites have prejudice against blacks

c) How do stereotypes affect behavior:i. Implicit Attitudes

1. Prejudice behaviors:a. Decrease smilingb. Less eye contactc. Less conversation timed. Hesitant e. Amodio and Devine 2006

i. Sit further away depending on IAT score (stereotyping)f. Payne 2001

i. Gun or toolii. Gun is associated with the black guy (not necessarily true)

iii. Tool is associated with white people (not necessarily true)g. Greenwald, Oakes and Hoffman (2003)

i. Police officers and criminals ii. Police Officers (white and black)

iii. Criminals (black and white)2. Often, these stereotypes formed by implicit attitudes are not true and are

only broad generalizations 3. Don’t think before we say = offensive, these implicit attitudes are

unconscious and ingrained the brain, associated with emotions4. Unaware of the facial expressions or body expressions that we are giving

off to the person (uncontrollable)

ii. Stereotype threat 1. Reasons as to why stereotypes influence this/our behavior: 2. Being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about ones group3. Threat of being judged or treated stereotypically (or fear of doing

something that would confirm that sterotype)4. Influences academic performance (does not necessarily impact ones

intelligence, although their self-awareness then influences their performance whether negatively or positivity)

5. Influences achievement – stereotype threat influences peoples thoughts, emotions and behavior

6. People confirm to their stereotype = even if it may not be true 7. Study: Steel and Aronson

S Steel and Aronson – Stereotype Threat (1995)A To investigate the effect of stereotype threat on the performance of people through

‘language is the thought of a people.’M Study 1:

Got 114 black and white, male and female participants via campus ads. Asked to provide SAT scores, rate how much they enjoyed verbally oriented classes, and background info (major, year in college).

3 groups: 2 non-diagnostic 1 diagnostic.

Answered the verbal portion of the Graduate Record Examination. Participants took an anxiety test afterwards.

Study 2:20 black and 20 white females.

2 groups: Diagnostic Non-diagnostic.

Computer based exam, also measured time taken to answer questions. Participants took an anxiety test after.

Study 3: 35 black (9M, 26F), and 33 white (20M, 13F) Stanford undergrads.

3 conditions: Diagnostic non-diagnostic control.

Randomly assigned. 2 types of test: Fragment completion and GRE type tests. Diagnostic: "Measuring your ability, will give strengths and weaknesses after." Non-diagnostic: "Not measuring your ability, but please try your best." Control: Got note on door of examiner apologizing for not being there.

Instructions given, nothing about measuring or not measuring was mentioned.

Study 4: 24 black (6M,18F), 23 white (11M, 12F) ; divided into 2 groups. Asked to answer a questionnaire. 1 group was asked their race at the beginning, the other was not. Took same test as in study 2, but on paper.

R In all 4 studies, African Americans in the diagnostic group did worse than white participants. In non-diagnostic condition, both races performed about the same. African-Americans showed more self-doubt than in whites.

C Stereotype threat is the threat of being in a situation where people could be judged or can do something that can confirm a stereotype.

Stereotype threat affects performance. Stereotype threats may cause spotlight anxiety & put more pressure on them to do better so they don't conform to the stereotypes. This may also lead to self-doubt and anxiety.

E Replicable: this experiment was conducted 4 times Reliable: results were consistent across the 4 trials Variety of participants (inability to generalize) – low, considering all were

Stanford undergrads (same school, around the same age) Only one stereotype was tested = cannot generalize to all of the others (many

stereotypes in the world) Lab experiment – low ecological validity (artificial = thus fake and cannot be

completely generalizable to real life situations)

Ethics: Deception: was used, and it could have been a cause of the anxiety of

participants since they might be sensitive toward the topic Did not mention debriefing

iii. Stereotype threat turns on spotlight anxiety (causes emotional distress and pressure that may hinder performance e.g. intelligence)

9. Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies. a) What is social learning theory

i. Observational Learning: social learning by observing others

1. Being conditioned indirectly by virtue of observing another’s condition (how you learn something)

ii. Modeling: observing and imitating a specific behavior (we follow our model) 1. Bandura 2011

iii. Steps: 1. Attention (cognition)2. Retention (cognition)

a. Relates to biology: brain activity underlies our intensity social nature

i. Mirror neurons (learn from observing and reinforcement/adapt: same process for neurons)

ii. Neural basis for empathy (lack of empathy = lack of mirror neurons)

3. Reproduction4. Motivation

b) Reason 1: how it influences behavior (modelling)

S Bandura (Bobo doll experiment) 2011A Study on aggression (how SL influences aggressive behavior)M 3-6 year olds

Observe models (videos)

3 Categories: Aggressive Non-aggressive No model

Children put in a room with the Bobo doll and made frustrated

Part 2 of method: (3 different categories) Get reward for being violent Punished with verbal reprimand and spanking No consequence

R Choose either fun toys or aggressive toys 88% of aggressive group showed aggression Most of non-aggressive group did not show aggression Children imitated behavior

Part 2: Those who were rewarded = continued Those who were punished = did not continue

C Children exposed to violent behavior (e.g. from parents) = likely to become more violent in the future

Generation (parental influence): kids who did or didn’t not get spanked = influences how likely they continue a behavior (their own condition)

E Controls: Time Gender Easily replicated Cause-and-effect relationship

No inform Consent 3-6 year olds Participants made frustrated

Low ecological validityDoes not show long-term effect

c) Link: how does SLT influence behavior

i. Observe conditions (their own and others around them) - reward or no reward aspect of experiment

ii. Model and imitate observed behavior (the video the children had watched)iii. Being frustrated initiates these behaviors (how you act in stressful situations) –

reacting aggressively or not

d) Reason 2: how it influences behaviori. Study

Study Charlton et al. (2002) The St. Helena ProjectAim To examine the impact of broadcast television on children in St. Helena.Method Summary

Multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological approach to data collection that allowed the collection of qualitative as well as quantitative data

Study 1 Data was collected both before (1993 and 1995) and after (1997 and 1999) TV

came to St. Helena. This data was a teacher’s checklist rating on their nursery students.

Study 2 & 3 Study on 3-8 year olds Their behavior in the playground was filmed both “pre-TV” and “post-TV” Their behavior both anti-social and pro-social were coded and analyzed.

Study 4 Study on 16-18 year olds Focus group discussion with the children talking about their behavior since

the TV arrivedStudy 5

Study on 13-14 year olds Analyses on the essays of the students Their topic was the people of Saint Helena

Study 6 Content analysis of the programs being viewed Depicted the violence on TV in St. Helena (1997 and 1998)

Study 7 Study on 7-8 year olds Children had to complete viewing diaries for three days

Study 8 Longitudinal study Used 47 children Teacher’s ratings of social behavior patterns were obtained before and after

the TV came to St. Helena Data was merged with content data analysis data — helps to figure out how

much violence the children were exposed to.Study 9

Study on 9-12 year old children Diaries of leisure behavior from children were analyzed Contrast between before and after the TV.

OVERALL:- Testing the before and after effect of TV (e.g. displacement effects and content

effects)- Displacement: how much they watch/if they watch it/ do they watch it more

than other activities- Content: what effect does the content have on them

Result Study 1 During the pre-TV phase, the children’s behaviors were “commendable” Post-TV phase showed poorer concentration, higher activity levels, more

fearful, more whining in boys.

Study 2 & 3 2 significant changes were seen with the children Post-TV phase helped decline the rates of antisocial behavior. There were no major changes in their pro-social behavior.

Study 4 & 5 The analyses showed that family and community had an effect on the standard

social interaction, more than the TV. Standards were set on how much TV they should watch, so it did not really

affect them.Study 6

Most programs had no violence Most violence occurred in cartoons, wrestling and boxing programs Violence shown were more with males than females

Study 7 1998 mean viewing time of 3 hours and 27 minutes and increase to 4 hours 51

minutes in 1999 Girls watched more than boys. Cartoons were the most popular

Study 8 No firm evidence that TV violence was linked to an increase in antisocial

behavior.Study 9

Watching TV became the most frequent actives More recently, the popularity of the TV has declined

Conclusion

Displacement effects Children become enthusiastic viewers — they watch more TV than other

activitiesContent effects

Challenges the idea that watching TV leads to more anti-social behavior. It is more family and community that shape behavior more than the TV

Evaluation

Ecological Validity — Real life setting Methods used — A lot of methods used to obtain different types of data Generality — Used different age groups of children, but only used children in

St. Helena

e) Link: how does SLT influence behaviori. Anti-social behavior

ii. It showed that the TV does not have an direct impact on anti-social behavior1. More on the family and the community that influences their anti-social

behavior iii. SLT – people may LEARN aggressive behavior but may not exhibit it (social

norms: social and cultural factors also play a role in what behaviors are acceptable, so even though the children had learned aggressive behavior, they did not show it nor imitate it)

iv. Social and cultural factors also play a role in what behaviors are acceptable, so even though the children had no doubt learned aggressive behavior, they did not show it.

v. The results also confirm the idea that people must be motivated to imitate behavior.

vi. Questions Bandura: children exposed to violent behavior are likely to model and imitate that behavior (they themselves become more violent) = contradicts that

1. Proves that there are so many other factors that influence SLT (whether these observed behaviors are actually displayed or not)

10. *Discuss the use of compliance techniques (for example, lowballing, foot - in - the - door, reciprocity) .

Introduction:

● Introduce what compliance is: ○ to agree to ○ positive (compared to conformity)○ “result of direct pressure to respond to a request”

Give an overview of the compliance techniques: Compliance is a type of social influence where an individual gets someone to do what they want through the use of techniques

○ Foot-In-The-Door (FTD)- an individual is more likely to comply to a larger favor once they have complied/agreed to a small favor, as they feel that they have now made a commitment

■ small requests to big request○ Door-In-The-Face (DTF)- to ask a more extreme favor and compensating it with a

smaller favor (voluntarily bring the extreme request down), in which an individual is more likely to comply to.

■ big request brought down to small request (voluntarily)

Why they are used: Compliance techniques are used to get others to follow their requests or

suggestions

Body:

Compliance techniques - ways in which individuals are influenced to comply with the demands/desires of others

Foot-In-The-Door: (demonstrates Commitment)i. Examples of Foot in the Door:

i. commitment (make people committed to your big request by offering smaller requests - feel the need to comply with the big request)

ii. Freedman and Fraseri. SCREAM (focus on results and conclusion)

1. 2 experiments, Californian participants2. Proved FTD

Study had 2 experiments and involved Californian participantsFirst experiment had 3 conditions These groups were contacted twice with small request first, then large request the second

Small: answer several non-invasive questions about household kitchen products (by phone)

Large request (3 days later): someone came to house and raid cabinets, cataloging all products

Results:

- those who agreed to the simple request, had 52.8% who actually complied with the second request, compared to the 22.2% of people in the fourth group who complied with the second request (contacted only for the larger request).

Second experiment: Groups divded similarly to first experiment 1st four experimental conditions: defined in terms of similarity of small and large

requests Asked to comply with small request and later asked a larger request (along

dimension/issue of task) Control: ask only larger request 1st request: varied along two dimensions: either to put small sign up or sign a

petition Issue: either safe driving or keeping California beautiful 2nd request: install a very large sign in their front lawn

Results: In experiment 2, as in the first experiment, complying with the first smaller request greatly increased the chances that the subject would comply with the second larger request. The results in both experiments showed that complying with the first smaller request greatly increased the chances that the subject would comply with the second larger request. This allowed the researchers to conclude that the foot-in-the door compliance technique is of outstanding merit and it can be applied to many real life situations, such as in business marketing strategies.

2. Relate SCREAM to study:In the study, it showed that the people who did the small request prior to the large one had a greater percentage on agreeing to the large request, while people wo did not do the small requests prior to the large one, mostly refused the large on in both experiments. This shows that the Foot-In-The-Door technique (start with small then a large one) increases a person’s likelihood to agree to the large one. This is because after doing a small request, they find it difficult to deny a second request.

3. Why is it used and how it works:

The reason to why you start with a small request then build up to a large request is because starting small increases the likelihood of the person agreeing to a larger following request. The reason is because after agreeing to a small request, the person feels the need to comply to a larger request as they find it difficult to say no (relates to obedience and respect – dispositional factors)

Door-In-The-Face: (demonstrates Reciprocity)

Is the opposite of Foot-In-The-Door Technique. First make a large request that you know will be refused then ask a smaller request which the person will find hard to refuse. Reciprocity explains why Door-In-The-Face technique works

a. Regan 1971 (reciprocity): innate need to give back to people who offered them a favor

i. SCREAM (focus on results and conclusion)1. Participants were all male and from Stanford University

2. introduced two groups (favor (received a coke) and no favor did not receive anything))

3. favor group bought twice as many raffle tickets in comparison to the no favor group - due to reciprocity

- Aimed to test the ability of reciprocity - 81 male college participants from Stanford University - Told them to rank paintings in which they would be paid 1.75 for the completion of their

task - Separated into two groups (unknowingly) - Favor group and no favor group- Place together with confederate (did not know they were being observed) - Favor group: walked away then came back with two Coca-Cola (favor) – participant did

not ask for it - No favor group: did not offer coco-cola - Confederate asked participant if he/she would like to buy raffle tickets for 25 cents each - Results showed that the participants in the favor group bought twice as many raffle

tickets than the no favor group

Why is it used and how it works?The reason why you start with a big request that you know will be refused then ask a smaller one is because people do not want to always say no (feel bad – dispositional), therefore, asking a small request after saying no to a larger one increases the likelihood that they will say yes

The favor lead the participant to feel reciprocity which made him feel indebted to the confederate because he had given him something prior even though he did not ask for it. Thus the similarity to the door-in-the-face technique is the particular way that the participant voluntarily gave something in response to the person who gave the favor as seen in Regan’s study wherein the participant felt the need to comply with the request because of reciprocity.

One is presented with the more extreme favor and due to the extremity he or she voluntarily suggests compensation with a smaller favor, in which the individual who was presented the favor would be more likely to comply to.

Conclusion:

● Restate the introduction● Summarize the body and how the studies link to the question● Conclude in general by giving real-life applications of compliance techniques

In conclusion, the different compliance techniques, foot in the door and door in the face, are used to get people to do what you want by asking both large and small requests. For the foot in the door technique, it is done by asking small requests prior to the big request. This is because the people after saying yes to small techniques want to keep their self-image and tend to say yes even to the larger request. For the door in the face technique, it is done by asking for the large request knowing they’ll say no then suggesting a smaller request still bigger than the initial outcome. This technique works as they feel bad for saying no the large request and since you suggested a smaller one, they tend to say yes. Thus, with the supporting studies, these two compliance techniques show how people use different compliance techniques in life to make others comply with their request.

11. *Evaluate research on conformity to group norms.

IntroductionA. Introduce conformity and group norms

1. Direct definition:a) When one changes their behavior to meet imagined group pressure or group

norms b) Changing what we do to fit others around us

i. Validates our own behavior ii. We ask ourselves “is what we are doing right?”

2. Two parts to why conformity occurs a) Informational social influence (to learn)

i. We don’t really know how to behavior so we copy someone else ii. We look towards others for help

b) Normative social influence (to be liked)i. We change our behavior because we know we need to behave a

certain way to be accepted B. Mention Study #1: Light bulb study

1. Sherif C. Mention Study #2: Line study

1. Asch D. State that there are strengths and weaknesses in these studies

Body

E. Overview of study #1: Sherif 1. Aim

a) To test whether answers would converge to a “group norm”2. Summarize method

a) People were tested alone and with a group and were asked if the light was moving or not

3. Results and conclusion a) Answers were more varied when alone b) When with a group, answers would be changed to fit the group norm that

was established4. Strengths of Study

a) TEACUPi. Testable

b) MAGECi. How does it enhance our learning of conformity to group norms?

5. Limitations of Studya) TEACUPb) MAGECc) How does it diminish our learning of conformity to group norms?

6. Short Conclusiona) Summarize + and –

F. Overview of study #2: Asch 1. Aim

a) To test whether social pressure from a large group would affect an individual’s willingness to conform

2. Summarize methoda) First condition - Group

i. Six confederates and one participant (participant always answered last)

ii. Asked question on which line was the same length as the standard3. Results and conclusion4. Strengths of Study

a) TEACUPb) MAGECc) How does it enhance our learning of conformity to group norms?

5. Limitations of Studya) TEACUP

i. Predictive validity: cannot predict group behavior and only individual behavior

b) MAGECc) How does it diminish our learning of conformity to group norms?

6. Short Conclusiona) Summarize + and -

G. Discuss different methods of studying social behavior

ConclusionH. Link back to the question

I. Research by Sherif et al and Ashe show that group conformity 1. But, weakness

a) Why was the study not good/useful2. However, strengths

a) Why was it (study) good/useful?J. Overall, (make closing statement)

1. Did it help explain conformity to group norms?

12. *Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture, groupthink, risky shift, minority influence). There are a number of factors influencing conformity that can be discussed, including:

o Cultureo Groupthinko risky shifto minority influenceo group size.

Introduction:

A. Define conformity 1. A change of behavior as a result or real or imagined group pressure or norms 2. Tendency to adjust one’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in ways that are in

agreement with those of a real or imagined group pressure or norms B. Why is conformity formed

1. Due to peer pressure, wanting to fit in and be accepted C. How is conformity formed

1. Informational social influence and normative social influencea) Informational Social Influence: when an individual turns to members of a

group to obtain information about what is right (e.g. when the available information is ambiguous)

b) Normative Social Influence: when an individual conforms in order to be accepted or liked by other members of the group. People have a need for social approval and acceptance

D. Social comparison: tendency to compare ourselves to others around us to validate our own behavior and opinions

E. Factors affecting conformity: ( ONLY STATE THE 2 THAT YOU WILL DISCUSS) 1. Unanimity2. Group size3. Self-esteem4. Cultural diversions5. Social identity

Body:General Study: Asch 1951

● Briefly explain the study ○ To test conformity - to see how social pressure from the majority of a group would

affect an individual’s willingness to conform ○ Participants had to decide which line closely matched the standard, while multiple

confederates chose the answer that was clearly wrong ○ 75% of participants conformed at least once○ 5% conformed to all○ 24% never conformed

○ Results showed that the participants agreed and conformed to the confederates answers.

○ Why? (asked during debriefing) ○ They thought they were wrong○ They were unsure of their answers ○ They didn’t want to be ridiculed by the group

*By this Asch paradigm: we are able to observe and extract numerous factors that influence conformity

Several studies have been derived from Asch showing the different factors affecting conformity such as self-esteem and cultural dimensions

1st factor: Self-Esteem

→ confidence in one’s own worth or abilities, in other words, self respect.

● Studies to name drop: ○ Stang 1973 carried out a study that correlated self esteem and conformity.

Participants were 52 female undergraduates and took a test that measured their self esteem. Their levels of esteem were measured a week later by Crutchfield’s conformity situation and found that there was a small but significant negative

correlation. Those with higher self esteem showed lower levels of conformity compared to those with lower levels of conformity.

○ Santee & Maslach 1982 found that students with high self esteem were less likely to agree with incorrect solutions to a problem from other students compared to those with lower self esteem.

● How and Why is self-esteem a factor?○ Self Respect and confidence - they go by their own judgement and highly believe in

their answers. They trust themselves more rather than the crowd.● How can this influence studies or findings that demonstrate conformity?

○ Participants that are used may vary from having high self-esteem or lower self esteem. Those with higher self esteem are going to less likely conform, thus will not demonstrate conformity unlike participants with lower self esteem that may conform more.

2nd factor: Cultural dimensions

(can be expanded on later after further explanation in class)

● What is it?○ Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory: framework for cross-cultural

communication ■ Describes the effects of a society’s culture on the value of its members ■ the perspectives of a culture based on values and cultural norms

● Studies that relate○ Berry (1967): tested the level of conformity based on ecocultural variables

■ How the society is organized ■ He found an example of cultures that there was a correlation between the

level of interdependence and the rate of conformity ● Hunting based cultures - showed lower levels of conformity ● Agriculture based cultures - showed higher levels of conformity

○ Bond and Smith (1996): characterized the societies using Hofstede’s dimension of individualism and collectivism

■ This study is evidence that collectivistic societies are more likely to conform ● Relate back to the question and explain how it is a factor in conformity

○ Cultural dimensions is a factor because people come from many different cultures and societies however people tend to stick to their own culture and the norms that they are used to

■ Results could differ depending on culture ● Why did this happen? Why is conformity showed less in hunting based cultures?

○ Hunting based cultures show lower levels conformity because they do not have tight social organization as compared to the agricultural based cultures

○ People from the agricultural based cultures tend to follow one type of norm and do the same things as everyone else in the society

Conclusion:

● Recap what you have written above● Self-Esteem and Cultural Dimensions - Why are they important factors to consider when

demonstrating conformity?● How do they affect results?

→ Support using studies that you have stated in the body.

● Therefore, self esteem and cultural dimensions influence conformity.

13. Define the terms “culture” and “cultural norms”.

Define: Say what it means in psychology and use precise vocabulary to do that.a) Culture

i. Examplesb) Cultural norms

i. Examples

14. *Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behavior (for example, individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Confucian dynamism, masculinity/femininity).

Examine: Carefully scrutinize an argument (or theory, concept, explanation) to see how it explains something and perhaps why. An examination could also include finding similarities and differences.

a) Define culture and cultural dimensions i. Question 13

ii. Cultural dimensions: is a framework for cross-cultural communication. It describe the effets of a society’s culture on the values of its members and how these values relate to behavior

b) Hofstede background (a bit about the five dimensions) i. Individualism v Collectivism

ii. Masculinity v Femininity iii. Power Distance iv. Uncertainty Avoidance v. Short-term v Long-term Orientation

c) Focus on 2i. Individualism v Collectivism

ii. Power Distance d) Hofstede:

i. Method:1. Gathered data from 100, 000 IBM employees from over forty countires

e) Differentiate (the first cultural dimension): Individualism v Collectivism i. General definition:

1. Collectivism: more of a group, more connected, more socially comfortable

a. Survival depends on teamwork b. More social interaction

2. Individualism: Tend to be more hunter-gatherer type societies a. Focus on themselves

ii. Examples:1.

iii. Study:1. Berry

a. Aim: Study influence of culture on conformity b. Method:

i. 2 Groups1. Inuits from Canada2. Temne from Sierra Leone

ii. Asch Paradigm (way of thinking) c. Results:

i. Inuits had lower levels of conformity 1. More individualist society 2. Value self-reliance more when raising children

ii. Temne had higher levels of conformity1. More collectivist 2. Agricultural3. Value obedience when raising children

iii. Conclusion1. Culture plays a role in conformity levels within a

society iv. Evaluation:

1. Reliable because it’s a replication of Asch 2. Easily replicated3. Cross-cultural – no cultural bias 4. Can’t be generalized – only used 2 groups of people 5. Artificial stimuli

f) Differentiate (the second cultural dimension): Power Distancei. General definition: how cultures deal with inequality

1. Whether cultures accept that power is distributed equally or unequally ii. Examples:

1. High power distance: hierarchy in the workforce (superior = more privilege)

a. Subordinates consider eachother unequal2. Low power distance: Subordinates expect to be consulted with, ideal

bosses are democratic a. Leaders are more physically more accessible

iii. Study:1. Results: trends:

a. Populationi. Larger population is associated with higher power distance

ii. Wealth: national wealth is associated with lower power distance (less wealth: high power distance)

g) How do cultural dimensions explain something (how individuals behave and how is that relied on cultural dimensions)

i. Individual v Collective1. Conformity (collectivist societies tend to conform more) 2. Influence whether you choose to conform or not3. Whether you want to be accepted or not

a. Need each other to survive in collectivist societiesi. Relates to trust (dispositional)

ii. How you treat others 1. In group Out group

a. Stronger views on outgroupsb. How you treat and perceive others

2. Lower power distance: less obedient (personality) a. Not exposed to authority figures as much

3. High power distance: you treat people on the same level as you better, because they’re in your in-group (e.g. boss and subordinates)

4. Others, either higher or lower, are in your outgroup so you don’t really see them in a positive light – more bias

15. Using one or more examples, explain “emic” and “etic” concepts.

Explain: Give reasons and causes for a behaviour or psychological phenomenon

a) Define culture b) Define emic and etic c) Etic: tries to find universal behaviors or rules that can be applied to all cultures around

the world i. Strengths:

1. Culture is not the underlying factor to behavior (humanity) 2. Connectedness 3. Humanity is underlying not culture 4. Empirical

ii. Limitations:1. Bias2. Assumptions

iii. Examples:1. Smile, laugh, cry, hello/goodbye2. Phonetic

a. How you see language around the world (verbal and physical/facial expressions and language)

d) Emic: culturally specific i. Strengths:

ii. Limitations:

iii. Examples:1. Proxemic Theory (Hall 1990)

a. Emic: walking closer (different distance in different cultures)b. Different cultures have different perceptions of the amount of

personal space that is required to be comfortable (your personal bubble)

c. Results: i. In USA: participants in conversations are approx. 10-15 cm

(4-7 in) apart ii. In Europe (parts of Europe): Half of that distance

2. Phonemica. Used language specific (specific meaning in language)

3. Hall: Time Consciousness a. Monochromic vs. polychromic (multi-task) culture

i. Monochromic: focus on one thing at a time (say yes to everything out of respect = try to fit everything in)

ii. E.g. Filipino time