4.

1 OUTLINE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE THE SOCIOCULTURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Principle 1: human beings are social animals w/ basic need to belong: motivated to have important relationships.
o Baumeister and Leary: belongingness theory-motivated to form/maintain interpersonal relationships
and human culture to some extent adapted to satisfy psychological need to live together.
o Howarth: focus group interview adolescent girls in Brixton to show self evaluation. Positive view of being
from brixton, contrasted w/ view of ppl outside. Creating social identity based on group belonging.
Principle 2: culture influences human behavior=humans create/shape/influenced by culture. Cultural norms=
provide general prescriptions of behavior that are expected in given culture/society.
o Berry: conformity in relation to culture, modified Asch. Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for
survival) conform more bc need to work together, Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing)
independent bc must hunt/fish on their own, low conformity.
Principle 3: humans have social self which reflect their group memberships. Group membership=social identities
(in groups) comparison with others (out groups). Bias on info processing (stereotyping) and discrimination.
o Tajfel and Turner: social identity theory- group based social identities based in categorization (in groups/
out groups), in group favoritism is common, out group negative bias.
Tajfel: minimal group paradigm: boys in two groups (random, told based on dot estimation/
painting preference), award points, awarded to members of own group (ingroup favoritism).
Social identity can be established in a task of minimal importance.
4.2 DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF SITUATIONAL AND DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS IN EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR
Heider: attribution theory-based on assumption that ppl are nave scientists who try to explain behavioral
observations. Distinction of internal/extern. cause of behavior. Attribution theory based on assumption that ppl:
o Look for causes/reasons bc believe that there are motives. Intuitive psychologists who construct own
casual theories of human behavior bc want to understand/predict/control environment.
Why attribution?: pervasive need for casual explanations to make world more predictable, most culture already
have these (myths + religions). Automatic tendency to see motives/disposition can override even where motive/
disposition doesnt really apply (eg. Belief in fate, witchcraft)
o What is the cause of observed behavior? 1) something within person (personality, internal factors)
Dispositional attribution (intelligence, personality, attitude) 2) outside person(situation, external factors)
situational attribution (group pressure, social norms, weather, luck).
Empirical research: Simmel-moving geometric figures, participants described like shapes intended to act. EvansPitchard=azande ppl of cent.Africa believed fate/witchcraft killed people when granary door collapsed bc
termites
4.3 DISCUSS TWO ERRORS IN ATTRIBUTION
Ross: The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE): overestimation of personality (dispositional), underestimate env.
Factors (make life predictable, ppl are understandable/easy to deal with.. Fiske: people rely too much on
personality, underestimate situation. Gilbert: western societies believe people get what they deserve.
o Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz FAE: allocated social roles + peoples judgement: 18 student pairs,
introductory class (Stanford uni), simulated quiz game w/ roles (contestant/questioner/24 observers),
questioner asks 10 questions, 30 secs, then after rate knowledge of contestants/questioners. Rated
knowledge of questioners superior bc related it to personality rather than situation gave advantage. Perfect
experimental set up, everyone knew quests made up questions. Participants uni students might be
sampling bias difficult to generalize, also eco validity.
o Suedfeld: Empirical: holocaust survivor attributions, quests to survivors/age matched jewish participants
not experienced in nazi persecution (control). holocaust survivors (91% attributed situational, 51% control).
(34% dispositional, 71% control) ppl who actually involved know its luck/power of situation.
o Cultural bias in FAE: determinant in attribution style. Collectivist emphasis on primary relationships (family,
social role, cultural activities), individualistic culture emphasis on individual(dispositional).
Norenzayan et al: Koreans Americans, given personality attributed to dispositional, when situational
given Koreans included this info more than Americans. Universal features in FAE.
Strengths of FAE

Limitations of FAE

Theory promoted understanding/explanation of

common errors/what happens in world. Robust,
supported.

Theory culturally biased, too much focus individualism,

research done in labs with student sample (eco valid,
generalization)

Self Serving Bias (self-enhancing strategy): people take credit for success (dispositional), failures to situational.
Self-handicapping=eg. Student openly make situational attributions when knowing going to fail (eg. No sleep).
o Could we self-protection (self-esteem). Can also occur when ppl have limited info. Ppl expect to succeed
w/own effort, exaggerate amount of control they have (miller and Ross).
o Empirical research: Lau and Russel: American football coaches/players=success to disposition, failure to
situational (rain, injury). Posey and Smith: SSB exp with children, math problems pair non friend/friend.
Children who worked with friend + failed=less SSB, gave friend credit when success, non friend=more SSB.
o Cultural considerations in SSB: may be natural part of enculturation/socialization.
Kashima + Triandis: slides of unfamiliar countries to American/Japanese students. American=success to
internal, failure to external. Japanese=failure with lack of ability=modesty bias, cultural variation of
SSB
Bond, Leung, and Wan: modesty bias in collectivist culture, like cultural norm in Chinese societies to
keep good relationships. Self-effacing attributions maybe less liked.

Strengths
Can explain why some explain failures by situational
(mostly individualistic cultures)

Limitations
Culturally biased theory. Cant explain why cultures
emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias)

4.4 EVALUATE SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

Tajfel and Turner: Social Identity Theory (SIT)=part of ones self concept based on knowledge of membership in
social groups in combination with value/emotional significance attached to membership. Theoretical framework
for analysis of intergroup relations.
o Strive to maintain positive self concept/social identity. Comparisons between in/outgroups on valued
dimensions to maintain/defend positive ingroup distinctiveness (social comparison)
Social comparison=if has positive outcome=need for positive social id satisfied=vice versa, Pos.
distinctiveness of ingroup.
Intergroup discrimination to uphold positive social identity within group.
Categorization (shared characteristics) ingroups (favoritism) or outgroup (discrimination)
o Tajfel: Experiment in intergroup discrimination-the minimal group paradigm: 64 boys(14-15 UK), psych lab,
in two groups (random, told based on dot estimation, over/underestimator, 2nd on painting preference),
award money points, awarded to members of own group (ingroup favoritism), 2nd tried to max diffs. Social
identity can be established in a task of minimal importance. Artificiality, demand characteristics, may have
interpreted as competitive game.
o Howarth: focus group interview adolescent girls in Brixton to show self evaluation. Positive view of being
from brixton, contrasted w/ view of ppl outside. Creating social identity based on group belonging.
Strengths of SIT
Assumes no need for intergroup conflict for
discrimination, supported by empirical research. Explains
mechanisism of establishing + distinctiveness to ingroup
by max diffs. Understanding ethnocentrism, IG favoritism,
conformity to IG norms, stereotyping

Limitations of SIT
Artificiality in minimal group research, so different
then real life. Cant fully explain how IG favoritism
leads to violent behavior towards outgroups/social
constraints such as bigger role in behavior than social
identity.

4.5 EXPLAIN THE FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES AND THEIR EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR

How do stereotypes form? SC learning, categorization, schema processing
o Katz and Braley 1933: 100 male students (Princeton uni) 5 traits from 84 to characterize ethnic groups
(americans, jews, Japanese, negroes), large agreement(especially on neg. traits), positive towards ingroup.
Stereotypes are learned(like cultural products, media). Traditional social stereotypes=cultural basis
Gilbert 1951: replicated, less uniformity esp. about negative traits, still demonstrated an ingroup bias.
Negative about japan (due to negative press/pearl harbor, supports stereotypes as cultural products),
participants expressed frustration about stereotyping=social change?

Karlins et al 1969: replicated, stronger object but greater agreement on stereotypes. Re-emergence of soial
stereotyping but more favorable images.
o Devine: shoes distinguish between knowledge of stereotype/accepting it. Princeton trilogy doesnt consider
Lipmann: stereotypes=simplified mental images, templates to help interpret social world

What is the effect of stereotypes on behavior?

o People grouped into in/out groups, emphasize similarities/exaggerate differences between groups. Out
group stereotypes central to group identity. Ppl pay attention to stereotype consistent info, disregard
inconsistent (confirmation bias). Negative stereotypes may be internalized by stereotyped groups.
o Darley and Gross: Showed participants video of girl playing in poor/rich environment then taking test
(intelligence). Said that rich girl would do better. Humans actively process info based on few salient details
to form overall impression.
o Steele and Aronson: African /European American, difficult multiple choice, verbal. When told verbal AAs did
poorer than EAs, when told task used to test how certain problems generally solved scored just as well.
Stereotype threat could affect behavior in any stereotyped group if members themselves believe in
stereotype.

4.6 EXPLAIN SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, MAKING REFERENCE TO TWO RELEVANT STUDIES
Bandura: Social learning theory (SLT)=people learn behaviors/attitudes/emotional reactions from observing
effects on others (vicarious reinforcement) stored in memory+serves as guide.
Four important factors in social (observational) learning: attention-retention-reproduction-motivation
o Bandura and Ross, Experimental investigation on learning aggression from a model: imitate aggression from
adult (more female/male?). 36 boys 36 girls (Stanford uni nursery school, mean 4.4 yrs) 3 groups (aggress.
Matching). 1)model aggressive-bobo doll 2)model assemble 3)control. further groups: male/female. Lab,
play room w/toys + bobo doll, observed 20 mins via one way mirror. 1)sig. more physically/verbally
aggressive, imitated but also other. More likely to imitate same-sex model, boys more aggressive than girls.
Evaluation: low eco valid. Artificial aggression (demand character?). young children (ethical consid).
Charlton et al: observation of introduction of television in a remote community (st. Helena) affect on aggression.
Observed 3-8 yrs via cameras on playgrounds on primary schools, tv aggression matched UK tv, interviews with
teachers/parents/older children. No increase in aggressive/antisocial behavior.
o Discussion: antisocial behavior not accepted on island, high degree of social control=even if aggressiveness
is learned, may not be exhibited. Social/cultural factors play role in defining acceptable behaviors.
o Evaluation: real life event, high eco valid. Doesnt question SLT but results of Bandura and Ross. Confirm
that people must have motivation to imitate behavior.
4.7 COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
The norm (or rule) of reciprocity: Cialdini=we treat people the way they treat us.
o Regan: favor=more likely to help person? Participant+confederate asked to rate paintings, experimental
brought back cola, then asked confed to buy raffle tickets. Exp condition bought more (liking doesnt
effect). Evaluation: lab experiment w/high control=recovering/returning favor=cause/effect. Artificiality
+ sample bias issues=limit generalization.
Foot in the door technique: Big request followed by small:

o
o

Dickinson et al: asked student to save water-sign poster-survey-monitored shower time=3.5 min less.
Evaluation: say yes=commitment=follow through. Pro social+extended requests more accepted because
of self-consistency. Most powerful when self-image is involved.
Cultural norms and reciprocity: Ting Toomey=compared reciprocity: individualist(Australia, USA, France)=
voluntary, collectivist(Japan, China)=obligatory(moral failure).
*balance review of factors relevant in understanding how compliance techniques are used as well as the implications
of their use.
4.8 EVALUATE RESEARCH ON CONFORMITY TO GROUP NORMS
Sherif: experimental investigation of conformity to perceived group norm: autokinetic effect, partic.watched
alone gave verbal estimate based on own frame reference, groups of 3-4 used each other=group norm. did task
alone again but remained with group norm=social norms emerge to guide in uncertain situations.
o Strengths: very influential, generated research, demonstrates group norm establishment+persistence even
in absence of social influence. Limitations:lab(artificial, ambiguous). Ethics: no informed consent, but
normal in sherifs time.
Asch: group pressure by majority effect on minority. 6 confeds 1 partic unanimous wrong answers to 3 line card.
12/18 in experimental, 37 alone(control for comparison). 35/37 no error.
o Strengths: high control=cause/effect, replicated several times, can to some extent explain why we conform
to social/cultural norms, universal conformity but varies cross culturally. Negatives: artificiality of lab
experiments hard to generalize (especially bc only male in USA), can explain how majority influences
minority but not vice versa. Ethics=participants deceived about purpose, embarrassing procedures.
Can conformity research reveal anything about conformity in real life?: Moghaddam: research may have social/
cultural bias(eg. Sherifs in USA when conformity was norm, things couldve changed). Nicholson et al: less
conformity in Asch(could be context dependent, also culture. Moscovici: traditional conformity research cant
explain minority influence like independence movements. Ingroup minorities have greater change of exerting
influence than out-group minorities.
4.9 DISCUSS FACTORS INFLUENCING CONFORMITY
Situation factors in conformity: group size/ group unanimity
o Group size: Asch made variation, 1 confed=right answer, increasing confeds=increase percentage errors,
not past 3. Participants resistant to change if notice gang up.
o Group unanimity:social support (nave participant or confed) for participant. Support increased right
answer especially if came before group answer=breaking group unanimity=reducing conformity.
Cultural norms as a factor in conformity:
o Bond and Smith:meta analysis, 133 studies, 12 countries on asch paradign, higher conformity in
collectivist, less in individualists. Higher when there is large majority group.
o Berry: conformity in relation to culture, modified Asch. Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for
survival) conform more bc need to work together, Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing)
independent bc must hunt/fish on their own, low conformity.
o Kagitcibasi: socialization pattern study on parents in 9 countries, 2,000 parent interviews. Consequence
of modernization is to some extent a break up of extended family seen in collectivist cultures + placing
emphasis on individual effort and responsibilities.
4.10 DEFINE THE TERMS CULTURE AND CULTURAL NORMS
Culture:
o Lonner: common rules, regulates group interaction/behavior+ # of shaped value.
o Hofstede: culture=programming, software of mind, guides in daily interactions, distinguishes
o Matsumoto: culture=dynamic system of rules, explicit/implicit, established by groups for survival,
involving attitudes/values/beliefs/norms/behaviors.
Cultural Norms=rules that specific group uses for stating what is seen as in/appropriate behavior, value, beliefs
and attitude. Give sense of order/safety/belonging. Encompass communication style/marriage+how/ child
raising/generation interaction. Explicit (eg. Legal odes) or implicit (conventional practices, rituals)
4.11 EXAMINE THE ROLE OF TWO CULUTRAL DIMENSIONS ON BEHAVIOR

Hofstede: cultural dimensions, survey of 88,000 IBM employees working in 66 countries.

o Culture=collective phenomenon that creates differences between groups based on dimensions.
Programming/software like=determine attitude, thoughts=resistant to change. Unlearning what is
learned/internalized=difficult.
o Collectivism vs individualism: Individualism= (France, Germany, Denmar, USA) loose voluntary ties, must
take care of ones self, freedom/personal challenge/personal time. Collectivism=ties to family throughout
life, extended social group provides safety for loyalty (Korea, Mexico, japan)
o Long term orientation and short term orientation: Hofstede and Bond: based on confusion work dynamism:
persistence, loyalty,trustworthiness,respect for tradition, and conservation of face are central.
Cultural dimension: collectivism vs. individualism: Wei et al: surveys on extent that dimension influenced conflict
resolution style. Random selection 600 managers in Singapore (Japanese, Americans, Chinese Singaporeans
working in multinational and CS in local). Questions+correlational analysis to find relationships. Higher in
individualist=more dominating (Americans). But both cases were found. Only to some extent proven dimension,
conclude that conflict resolution cant be reduced to cultural dimensions.
Cultural dimension: long term vs short term orientation: Basset: qualitative, perception comparisons of conflict
resolution in Australian/Chinese students in relation to collect/indiv. And long/short term orientation.
Qualitative cross cultural study, bachelors of B&M, analyze potential conflict(15 china 15 aus) Discuss how this
conflict might be resolved in____. Confirmed hofstedes for ind/collect but no explanation for all data.
Confirmed important understanding of long/short orientation.
China
Australia
Face saving, interpersonal relationships, solve problems Policies/procedures rather than traditions/culture.
+enhance relationships. Banquets+gifts (Guanxi).
Arbitration/mediation if they feel unfair treatment.
4.12 EXPLAIN USING EXAMPLES, EMIC AND ETIC CONCEPTS
Emic: uses one culture alone to study culture specific behavior. Through local eyes. Phenomenon link to culture
(structure) and meaning in specific context emphasized. Norms, values, motives
o Bartlett: Swazi hersdmen recall individual characteristics of their cattle. Swazi culture revolves around
possession/care of cattle.
o Yap: culture bound system (CBS) culture specific psychological disorder.
Etic: compares psychological phenomena across cultures to find universals in human behavior.
o Kashima and Triandis: slides of unfamiliar countries to American/Japanese students. American=success
to internal, failure to external (dispositional, self serving bias). Japanese=failure with lack of
ability=modesty bias, cultural variation of SSB(situational).
o Berry: conformity in relation to culture, modified Asch. Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for
survival) conform more bc need to work together, Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing)
independent bc must hunt/fish on their own, low conformity.