Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yeet
Yeet
Sociocultural Approach
By: mythic_fci#1141
What this session will cover
• All SL & HL content within the Sociocultural Approach
• Social Identity Theory
• Social Cognitive Theory
• Conformity
• Stereotypes
• Culture
• Enculturation
• Acculturation
• (HL ONLY) Globalization
• Suggested relevant research (NOTE: Not mandatory!)
• Going through possible questions & responses
Core Concepts of the Sociocultural Approach
• Our behavior as humans is influenced by others, even unconsciously
• We have both an individual and social identity that influence our
behavior
• Identity: Who we believe we are
• Individual: Relating to oneself
• Social: Relating to other individuals in one’s life
• One can learn/take on certain behaviors through interaction with &
observation of others
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel et al.)
• Asserts social categorization (i.e. the act of grouping people) influences one’s
identity & thus one’s behaviors (e.g. in-group favoritism, discrimination, etc.)
• Asserts 3 interconnected processes (‘steps’) lead to discriminatory behaviors:
Findings:
• Majority of Ss conformed at least once with in-group (psych student)
confederates
• Only a minority did so with out-group (history student) confederates
Conclusions:
• One’s behavior (conformity in this case) is more influenced by one’s in-groups vs
out-groups
• Re: SIT - Desire to elevate one’s in-group above out-group (Positive Distinction) supersedes
‘reasonable’ response; demonstrates extent of effect of social categorization on behavior
Overall…
• Social categorization appears to influence behavior
• Induces competition (discrimination?)—Tajfel & Turner
(1971)
• Causes one to favor in-groups over out-groups in
conforming behaviors—Abrams et al. (1990)
• Too reductionist? Other variables?
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura)
Asserts humans don’t need to experience things personally to learn
them—we can learn through observational learning from models
• i.e. A learner can watch another person (a ‘model’) carry out a
behavior &, based on observed outcome (reward/punishment), learn
to imitate or avoid said behavior
• Why? Saves time when thinking, helps w/ survival
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura)
Four conditions required:
• Attention: Observers must pay attention to the
behavior being conducted by the model
• Retention: Observers must be able to remember
the behavior
• Motivation: Observers must want a certain
outcome from the behavior
• Potential: Observers must believe that they’re
capable of carrying out the behavior
Relevant Research
Bandura et al. (1961)—Bobo Doll Experiment
Aim: Investigate if social behaviors can be acquired by observation & imitation
Ss: 36 boys & 36 girls, 3-6 y/o
Procedure:
1. Ss aggression levels measured by asking Ss’s teachers to rate their aggression
2. Ss split into groups by matched-pairs design to ensure all variables (e.g. pre-existing levels of aggression)
distributed equally
3. Ss entered a room with toys, then told that they could not play with them; this caused baseline levels of
frustration as control for initial frustration level of Ss
4. Then, Ss either:
1. Shown a male or female aggressive model (model acted aggressively to Bobo doll)
2. Shown a male or female non-aggressive model (model acted neutrally, e.g. assembling toys)
3. Shown nothing (control)
5. Ss then given the Bobo doll, aggression levels to it (behavior) were recorded
Relevant Research
Bandura et al. (1961)—Bobo Doll Experiment
Findings:
• Children shown aggressive model acted most aggressively to Bobo doll
• Children shown control (no model) were second-most aggressive
• Children shown non-aggressive model were least aggressive
• Boys tended to imitate both physical & verbal aggression of model, regardless of model’s gender
• Girls tended to imitate only the verbal (not the physical) aggression of the male model BUT both the physical
& verbal aggression of female model
Conclusions:
• Social behaviors can be acquired through observation and imitation of a model
• In-group (identification with) models appear to encourage social learning
• As girls identified more with female models, perhaps they were more motivated to & believed themselves to be more capable of
replicating behavior
Relevant Research
Charlton et al. (2002)—St. Helena TV Experiment
Aim: Investigate the effect of viewing models from television on children’s behavior
Ss: 3-8 y/os from St. Helena who had never watched TV
Procedure:
(Natural longitudinal experiment; before/after introduction of TV to St. Helena)
1. Before introduction of TV, Ss’s behavior analyzed by asking parents & teachers
about them, filming Ss playing in school playground
2. After 5 years (after TV became available in St Helena), Ss’s behavior analyzed
again by filming them playing
Relevant Research
Charlton et al. (2002)—St. Helena TV Experiment
Findings:
• No diff in aggression before & after TV
• Base levels of aggression before TV’s introduction were low to begin
with
Conclusion: Ppl may not necessarily imitate/learn behaviors from
models; SCT not supported
Conformity
Individuals changing their attitudes/behavior to adhere to
existing social norms (i.e. agreed-upon ideas, standards,
rules, or ways of thinking within groups/societies).
Caused by:
• Informational influence: Taking information on how to
behave from a group in an ambiguous situation
• Normative influence: Conforming to behavior of a group
to avoid rejection/judgement (“Don’t rock the boat”)
May be influenced by:
• Social identity
• Culture
Relevant Research
Sherif (1935)—Conformity in Ambiguous Situations
Aim: Demonstrate ppl tend to conform to group norms in ambiguous
situations (informational influence)
Procedure:
1. Ss entered a dark room with a light alone, told to judge how much
the light moved (in reality, the light never moved; any perceived
movement was result of a visual illusion—the ‘auto-kinetic effect’)
2. Then, group of 3 Ss brought into the same room, taking turns at
random calling out their judged estimates
3. Finally, Ss brought into same room to be tested alone again
Relevant Research
Sherif (1935)—Conformity in Ambiguous Situations
Findings:
• Ss initially alone: Ss’s estimates converged to a personal uniform estimate
• Ss in groups: Ss’s estimates were influenced by other group member’s estimates,
with a common ‘standard estimate’ (group norm) emerging
• Ss alone again: Ss continued to adhere to established group norm even in
absence of group
Conclusion: In a group environment, ppl tend to unconsciously conform to group
influence, even without group present (demonstrating informative influence of
group norms on conforming behavior)
Relevant Research
Asch (1951)—Normative Influence & Conformity (Line
Paradigm)
Aim: Investigate the extent to which pressure from a majority group can influence a person
to conform
Procedure:
1. Ss brought into a room with 6 confederates/actors whom Ss were led to believe were
other Ss
2. All ppl in room shown 2 cards –1st one had 1 line on it, 2nd had 3. One of the lines on
the 2nd card was made to be obviously the same length as the line on the 1st.
3. Ss and confederates then asked to judge which line on the 2nd card matched the line
on the 1st card
4. Repeated multiple times; confederates were instructed to deliberately give the wrong
answer on 2/3 of the trials (12 out of 18)
Relevant Research
Asch (1951)—Normative Influence & Conformity (Line
Paradigm)
Findings:
• Large majority of Ss conformed to the group/wrong answers of the
confederates at least once
• When asked why, Ss said that they did so to avoid social
disapproval/criticism
Conclusion: Ppl will conform to group, even if they know group is
wrong, to avoid social disapproval (demonstrates normative influence)
Related Research
Abrams et al. (1990)—Line Paradigm & Social Identity
Procedure:
1. Ss read a series of sentences describing +ve & -ve behaviors of members of two
groups
• 1st group (majority group) had twice as many people & total behaviors as the 2nd group
(minority group) but the proportion of +ve & -ve behaviors was the same
2. Ss then estimated how often members in each group performed –ve & +ve
behaviors
Relevant Research
Hamilton & Gifford (1976)—Illusory Correlations & Stereotypes
Experiment 2
Procedure: Replication of exp. 1 but Ss anxiety measured w/ self-report
after the test
Findings: No diff in anxiety btw AA & W Ss
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat
Experiment 3
Procedure:
• Replication of exp. 1
• After being told whether test was/wasn’t indicative of intelligence & before test,
Ss completed questionnaires asking demographic info & w/ measures of:
• Stereotype Activation: Word completion task, e.g. _ _ CE, _ _ A C K, etc.
• Self-Doubt: Word completion task, e.g. DU _ _
• Stereotype Avoidance (degree of avoiding perception of appearing like stereotype):
Questions asked like “How much do you enjoy rap music/classical music/basketball/etc.?)
• Self-Handicapping (degree of giving excuses for performance): Questions asked like “How fair
do you think standardized tests are?” or “How much stress have you been under lately?”
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat
Experiment 3 (cont.)
Findings:
• AA Ss in threat condition displayed…
• Heightened awareness of own racial identity (e.g. filled in RACE & BLACK
instead of, say, MACE or SHACK)
• More self-doubt (e.g. filled in DUMB instead of, say, DUCK)
• More avoidance of stereotypes—Answered less +vely than non-threat AA Ss
when asked how much they enjoyed ‘stereotypically Black’ things e.g. rap
music, basketball
• More self-handicapping—Made more excuses for lack of own ability (e.g.
tended to say they were under more stress, felt tests were unfair, etc.)
• Disidentification with their (stereotyped) group: Less likely to report own
race in demographic questions
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat
Experiment 4
Procedure:
• Replication of the non-threat condition only of exp. 1 (i.e. ALL Ss were
told that the test wasn’t indicative of intelligence)
• ½ of Ss were also asked to report their race before the test
Findings: AA Ss who reported their own race performed worse than W
Ss; AA Ss who didn’t report their race did equally well
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat
Overall Conclusions:
• Making stereotypes about ability salient (obvious) can lead to:
• Disruptions in performance (all exp.s)
• Doubt in one’s ability (exp. 3)
• Disidentification with a stereotyped group (exp. 3)
• Anxiety is not a factor in the disruptions of performance caused by
stereotype threat (exp. 2)
• Even reminding people of their identity (not even the stereotype)
before performing a stereotype-related task can lead to this (exp. 4)
Culture
Many definitions… Two are:
Matsumoto & Juang (2007) Hofstede
• A dynamic (changes over time) system of Collective programming of the mind
rules… distinguishing members of one group from
• Explicit & implicit (both openly spoken about another
& implied)…
• Transmitted across generations (passed on
from one generation to the next, i.e.
enculturation—more on this later)…
• That allows the group to meet needs of
survival, pursue wellbeing, and derive
meaning from life (aka function)
Culture—The Emic & Etic Approaches
There are two approaches to studying culture in relation to behavior &
cognition…
Etic Emic
Assumes behavior is universal, applies findings Focuses on studying individual cultures/communities,
globally applies findings to the specific culture/community
being investigated
Uses deductive thinking—from existing understanding Uses inductive thinking—observation carried out,
of world, predictions & tests are made evidence gathered, a new theory developed
Plans research before visiting; gathers data Develops theories/RQs after spending time &
immediately upon arrival becoming familiar w/ culture/community
Uses standardized tests/measures & theories from Develops culture-specific tests/measures in
own culture consultation w/ local community & local experts
Relevant Research
Hofstede (1973)—Classifying Behavior According to Culture
(aka: The Cultural Dimensions)
How do you classify behaviors typical to cultures?
Aim: Identify & classify behaviors according to cultures worldwide
Ss: IBM employees from various countries worldwide
Procedure: From 1967-1973, Ss filled out survey about how they
perceived their work environment
Findings/Conclusions: Found differences in mental programming
between cultures; 4 specific cultural dimensions identified initially, 2
added later
Relevant Research
Hofstede (1980)—Classifying Behavior According to Culture
(aka: The Cultural Dimensions)
The Cultural Dimensions:
• Power Distance: How individuals relate to power & authority (i.e.
preferring a hierarchical order vs equality of power)
• Individualism vs Collectivism: Whether individuals see themselves as
dependent or independent of a social group
• Long-Term vs Short-Term Orientation: How a society thinks about its
past, present, future & how it organizes itself based on this (i.e.
maintaining traditions & being suspicious of change vs taking a
pragmatic approach to change)
Relevant Research
Hofstede (1973)—Classifying Behavior According to Culture
(aka: The Cultural Dimensions)
(cont.)
• Masculinity vs Femininity: Preference for ‘masculine’ (e.g.
competition, glory, etc.) vs ‘feminine’ (e.g. cooperation, friendship)
values
• Uncertainty Avoidance: Degree of comfort with uncertain/ambiguous
situations
• Indulgence vs Restraint: How much individuals in a society control
their desires/impulses (i.e. allowing vs suppressing gratification)
Relevant Research
Berry (1967)—Individualism vs Collectivism & Conformity
Findings:
• ¾ of Ss had acculturative stress
• Ss w/ bilingual preferences had lower acculturative stress; Ss who
only preferred to speak English had higher acculturative stress
• Discrimination significantly contributed to acculturative stress
• Ss satisfied w/ their SES & economic opportunities and/or their choice
to immigrate (i.e. they would choose to do it again) had lower
acculturative stress
Relevant Research
Lueck & Wilson (2010)—Acculturative Stress in Asian-Americans
Conclusions:
• Acculturative stress is common in immigrants
• Bilingual language preferences, prevalence of discrimination,
satisfaction with SES, & satisfaction w/ immigration decrease
acculturative stress.
(HL ONLY) Globalization
• Process of increasing interconnectedness across the world
• As ppl are increasingly able to interact w/ each other globally, our identity &
behavior are influenced
• Some, like Giddens (1991), claim we are headed to a ‘global social
identity’ with a ‘cosmopolitan’ (diverse) individual for whom
humankind is a ‘we’ and there are no others
• i.e. All of humanity an in-group, no out-groups
• However, globalization may also –vely influence behavior (e.g. body
image, promoting eating disorders, etc.)
• Rosenmann et al. (2015) argues that globalization is merely the spread of
typical Western values/content
Relevant Research
Buchan et al. (2011)—Global Social Identity &
Cooperation
Aim: Investigate if identification with a ‘global culture’ motivates
cooperation
Ss: 1122 ppl from various countries (US, Italy, Russia, Argentina, South
Africa, Iran)
Procedure:
1. Ss’s social identity (local, national, global) & concern for global
affairs (e.g. global warming) measured
2. Ss then given funds to invest in either a personal, national, or global
fund
3. Then…
A single S invests money into their S gets that exact amount of money
personal fund Personal Fund
back from their personal fund
Several Ss from the same country National Fund Total money in fund (total amt
invest into their national fund Money in fund invested x2) divided equally among Ss
multiplied by 2 who invested in it
Several Ss from various countries Global Fund Total money in fund (total amt
invest into the global fund Money in fund invested x3) divided equally among Ss
multiplied by 3 who invested in it
Relevant Research
Buchan et al. (2011)—Global Social Identity &
Cooperation
Findings:
• Ss who identified more w/ a global community tended to invest more
in the global fund (the mathematically superior fund…if everyone
invests in it)
Conclusion: Social identification w/ a global culture/community
appears to increase cooperative behaviors contributing to the global
public good
Relevant Research
Becker et al. (2002)—Eating Behaviors in Fijian Adolescent Girls
Procedure:
1. Before TV intro’d to Fiji, eating attitudes of 1st group of Fijian girls
(avg ~17y/o) measured through interviews
2. 3 years after TV intro’d to Fiji, eating attitudes of 2nd group (~5 years
older than 1st group) measured through interviews
NOTE: 1st group NOT THE SAME as 2nd group—NOT A LONGITUDINAL
STUDY!
Relevant Research
Becker et al. (2002)—Eating Behaviors in Fijian Adolescent Girls
Findings:
• 2nd group had significant increase in indicators of eating disorders
• Responses of 2nd group indicated higher levels of anxiety about
weight & changes in attitudes re: diet, weight loss, ideal body image
Conclusion: Globalization (through media/communication) results in
cultural shifts in behavior, possibly increasing tendencies of –ve
behaviors e.g. eating disorders
Some possible SAQs…
NOTE: All questions here, except those marked as coming from the
official IB specimen paper for the 2019-onwards syllabus, are made by
myself. There are no past papers for this new syllabus (yet).
1. Describe one study on conformity.
2. With reference to one study, outline Social Identity Theory.
3. Explain one study of Social Cognitive Theory.
4. With reference to a study investigating acculturation, outline one
strength and one limitation of a research method used in the study.
(OFFICIAL IB SPECIMEN PAPER)
Some possible ERQs…
1. Discuss how stereotypes may arise and affect human behavior.
(OFFICIAL IB SPECIMEN PAPER)
2. Evaluate Social Identity Theory.
3. Discuss the effect of globalization on behavior.
4. Contrast two or more pieces of research relating to Social Cognitive
Theory.