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 childs 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. Culture
b. Grow up believing this group is bad/group
c. 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: Tajfel
a. 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/measured
b. Independent variable: the variable influencing the tested (dependent variable)
c. Controlled: maintained variable to ensure not other external factors influence the
results
d. 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 phenomenas 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 persons
behavior, thus, it allows researchers to generalize their findings to a larger extent
than other RMs (e.g. case studies) although, there is he ecological validity factor
to consider)
e) Research method #2
f) 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: doesnt 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 whats 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 factors
iii. 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
A
M

Stanley Milgram Experiment

To investigate the extent to which people would follow an authoritive figure (study on
obedience)
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)
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 stuttered
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
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 shocked
Researchers were very forceful and demanding (potential harm)
Im 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
A
M

R
C

Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo (1972)

To investigate how people respond to authority and to investigate how the situation
(environmental factors) influence behavior
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 prisoner

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

e)

f)

g)

Situational factor: social roles (group behavior: deindividuation: loss of selfawareness 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)
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
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 persons control)
1. When explaining our OWN behavior = tend to make external attributions
(environment factors)
Why do we do this?
i. Makes us feel better about ourselves
ii. 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
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 attributions

a) 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 someones or your own behavior) attach meaning to others and our own behavior
ii. Internal attribution: dispositional (enduring internal characteristics, e.g.
personality, motives, beliefs)
iii. External attribution: situational (outside environment, outside a persons
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 thats
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 attribution
i. Wrongly interpret the WHY to something
ii. Attributions are derived from observations leads to illogical conclusions,
misinterpretations
c) Fundamental attribution error
i. 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
A
M

Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross et al. (1977)

To determine whether student participants would make the fundamental attribution
error even when they knew that all the actors were simply playing a role
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 knowledge
Contestants = answer
Audience: watched the game show
All 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

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)
Participants whom ranked intelligence failed to attribute the role to the
persons 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
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 wasnt 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 bias
i. 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 dispositional
4. 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
A
M

Johnson et al. (1964)

To investigate self-serving bias in student tutors
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 childrens learning progress
Worksheets 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
Participants attributed student Bs improved performance to their abilities as a
teacher
Participants attributed student Bs failure to the students lack of ability
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 = positive
Unsuccessful students = teachers attribute to situational factors (external to
themselves) = childs ability = dissociate our self from failure protect self-esteem
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
A
M

Social Identity Theory Henri Tajfel (1970) Experiments in Intergroup

Discrimination
To test behavior of an individual towards both other in-group members and outgroup
members
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.
rd
3 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).

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 disliked
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

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 validitys: understanding behavior: ethnocentrism (belief that
ones 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
A
M

Sherif et al. (1961)

To study informal groups and observe the natural development of group
organization, attitudes and group norms
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 others 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

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.
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.
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 cant 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 ones own sense of in-group identity
o It cannot only be the identity aspect within the group that influences a persons
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.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Heuristics guide stereotypes

Benefit = not time consuming
Cost = not very accurate
We often see what we want to see
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-group
iii. 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 group
In-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 favors
ii. 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 1934
i. 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 wont
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 smiling
b. Less eye contact
c. Less conversation time
d. Hesitant
e. Amodio and Devine 2006
i. Sit further away depending on IAT score (stereotyping)
f. Payne 2001
i. Gun or tool
ii. 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. Dont think before we say = offensive, these implicit attitudes are
unconscious and ingrained the brain, associated with emotions
4. 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 group

3. 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
A
M

Steel and Aronson Stereotype Threat (1995)

To investigate the effect of stereotype threat on the performance of people through
language is the thought of a people.
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.

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.
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.
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 anothers 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. Reproduction
4. Motivation
b) Reason 1: how it influences behavior (modelling)
S
A
M

Bandura (Bobo doll experiment) 2011

Study on aggression (how SL influences aggressive behavior)
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
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
Children exposed to violent behavior (e.g. from parents) = likely to become
more violent in the future
Generation (parental influence): kids who did or didnt not get spanked =
influences how likely they continue a behavior (their own condition)
Controls:
Time
Gender
Easily replicated
Cause-and-effect relationship
No inform Consent
3-6 year olds
Participants made frustrated

Low ecological validity

Does 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 behavior
i. Study
Study
Aim

Charlton et al. (2002) The St. Helena Project

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 teachers 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 arrived
Study 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
Teachers 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

Conclusi
on

Evaluati
on

Study 1
During the pre-TV phase, the childrens 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
Displacement effects
Children become enthusiastic viewers they watch more TV than other
activities
Content 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
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 behavior

i. Anti-social behavior
ii. It showed that the TV does not have an direct impact on anti-social behavior
1. 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)
Examples of Foot in the Door:
commitment (make people committed to your big request by offering smaller requests - feel the
need to comply with the big request)
ii.
Freedman and Fraser
i.
SCREAM (focus on results and conclusion)
1. 2 experiments, Californian participants
2. Proved FTD
i.
i.

Study had 2 experiments and involved Californian participants

First 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 persons
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
i
1
2
3

Regan 1971 (reciprocity): innate need to give back to people who offered them a favor
SCREAM (focus on results and conclusion)
Participants were all male and from Stanford University
introduced two groups (favor (received a coke) and no favor did not receive anything))
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 Regans
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 theyll 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.

Introduction
A. 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 dont 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 established
4. Strengths of Study
a) TEACUP
i.
Testable
b) MAGEC
i.
How does it enhance our learning of conformity to group norms?
5. Limitations of Study
a) TEACUP
b) MAGEC
c) How does it diminish our learning of conformity to group norms?
6. Short Conclusion
a) Summarize + and
F. Overview of study #2: Asch
1. Aim
a) To test whether social pressure from a large group would affect an
individuals willingness to conform
2. Summarize method
a) 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 standard
3. Results and conclusion
4. Strengths of Study
a) TEACUP
b) MAGEC
c) How does it enhance our learning of conformity to group norms?
5. Limitations of Study
a) TEACUP
i.
Predictive validity: cannot predict group behavior and only individual
behavior
b) MAGEC
c) How does it diminish our learning of conformity to group norms?
6. Short Conclusion
a) Summarize + and G. Discuss different methods of studying social behavior
Conclusion
H. 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/useful

2. 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 Culture
o Groupthink
o risky shift
o minority influence
o group size.
Introduction:
A. Define conformity
1. A change of behavior as a result or real or imagined group pressure or norms

B.
C.

D.
E.

2. Tendency to adjust ones thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in ways that are in

agreement with those of a real or imagined group pressure or norms
Why is conformity formed
1. Due to peer pressure, wanting to fit in and be accepted
How is conformity formed
1. Informational social influence and normative social influence
a) 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
Social comparison: tendency to compare ourselves to others around us to validate our
own behavior and opinions
Factors affecting conformity: ( ONLY STATE THE 2 THAT YOU WILL DISCUSS)
1. Unanimity
2. Group size
3. Self-esteem
4. Cultural diversions
5. 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
individuals 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 didnt 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 ones 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 Crutchfields 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?
Hofstedes cultural dimensions theory: framework for cross-cultural communication
Describes the effects of a societys 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 Hofstedes 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. Examples
b) 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 societys 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 2
i. 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 Groups
1. Inuits from Canada
2. 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 conformity
1. More collectivist
2. Agricultural
3. Value obedience when raising children
iii. Conclusion
1. Culture plays a role in conformity levels within a
society
iv. Evaluation:
1. Reliable because its a replication of Asch
2. Easily replicated
3. Cross-cultural no cultural bias
4. Cant be generalized only used 2 groups of people
5. Artificial stimuli
f) Differentiate (the second cultural dimension): Power Distance

i. 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 unequal
2. 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. Population
i. 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 Collective
1. Conformity (collectivist societies tend to conform more)
2. Influence whether you choose to conform or not
3. Whether you want to be accepted or not
a. Need each other to survive in collectivist societies
i. Relates to trust (dispositional)
ii. How you treat others
1. In group Out group
a. Stronger views on outgroups
b. 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 theyre in your in-group (e.g. boss and subordinates)
4. Others, either higher or lower, are in your outgroup so you dont 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. Bias
2. Assumptions
iii. Examples:
1. Smile, laugh, cry, hello/goodbye
2. 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. Phonemic
a. 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