IB Psychology Revision—May 2019

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:

Social Comparison Either:

Social Categorization • Tendency to compare • In-group perceived >
Act of grouping others
Social Identification
one’s in-groups to
• Aspects of one’s self- out-group, self-esteem
into in-groups & out- one’s out-groups
image (who one is as enhanced & +ve social
groups (“us’ vs “them”) • May exaggerate identity
an individual) are
• In-groups: Groups one differences/simil
brought to forefront of • In-group perceived <
identifies as a member arities—category
one’s mind out-group, self-esteem
of accentuation
• Based on group lowered, person may
• Out-groups: Groups effect
membership, try to leave in-group (if
one doesn’t identify as • Seeking of +ve social possible)
influences inter-group
a member of identity (positive
behaviors Either way, behavior
distinction) to maintain influenced
& enhance self-esteem
Relevant Research
Tajfel & Turner (1971)—Inter-Group Discrimination
Aim: Demonstrate that putting people into groups (i.e. social categorization) is sufficient for ppl to discriminate
against out-group in favor of in-group
Ss: British schoolboys
Procedure:
1. Ss shown paintings by 2 artists (Klee & Kandinsky) w/o being told which painting was from which artist &
asked to say which paintings they preferred
2. Ss then randomly assigned to ‘Klee group’ or ‘Kandinsky’ group, told it was based on which artists’
paintings they preferred more
3. Ss given matrices to give ‘points’ to a boy from their group & a boy from the other group by selecting one
column of points awarded; matrices were designed so Ss could take 3 strategies:
1. Maximum joint profit: Largest absolute reward for members of both groups
2. Largest reward to in-group: Largest absolute reward for in-group regardless of reward to out-group
3. Maximum difference: Largest possible relative difference in reward to in-group vs out-group
Relevant Research
Tajfel & Turner (1971)—Inter-Group Discrimination
This is an example of the booklet used (You don’t need to memorize any of this—
this is just to help you understand exactly what they did)
Blue: Maximum joint profit, Green: Largest reward to in-group, Red: Maximum difference
Relevant Research
Tajfel & Turner (1971)—Inter-Group Discrimination
Findings:
• Majority of Ss took maximum difference strategy, rewarded more to own group
than other group to maximize diff btw groups (elevating own group > other
group)
Conclusion: Social categorization is sufficient for discrimination against out-group
in favor of in-group to occur.
Related Research
Abrams et al. (1990)—Line Paradigm & Social Identity
Aim: Investigate effect of social identity (in-group/out-group) on conformity
Ss: Uni psych students
Procedure: (Modified Asch line paradigm)
1. Ss entered a room with several confederates/actors whom Ss were led to believe were other Ss
and either:
1. Psychology students (in-group)
2. Ancient history students (out-group)
2. All ppl in room shown 2 cards: 1st had 1 line on it; 2nd had several, one of which was 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
some of the trials
Related Research
Abrams et al. (1990)—Line Paradigm & Social Identity

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

…See the earlier summary.

Conclusions (as relevant to conformity): Normative conforming

behavior is influenced by one’s social identity, esp. presence of
grouping/categorization (ppl will more often conform to in-groups vs
out-groups)
Related Research
Berry (1967)—Influence of Culture on Conformity

Aim: Investigate differences in conformity between individualist

(independent of social group) & collectivist (dependent of social group)
cultures
Ss: Canadian Inuits, members of African Temne tribe
• Inuits considered individualist society (hunt for food individually, must
rely on self for long periods of time often)
• Temne considered collectivist society (agricultural; must communicate
& cooperate to harvest crops for entire community)
Procedure: Inuits & Temne both completed the Asch line paradigm
Related Research
Berry (1967)—Influence of Culture on Conformity

Findings: Temne tribe members conformed to confederates (group) @

much higher rate than Inuits
Conclusion: Cultural factors (individualism vs collectivism) appear to
influence conformity (individualist societies have lower rates of
conformity & vice versa)
Stereotypes
• A generalized mental representation of a group & its members (may
be +ve or –ve)
• As our social world is very complex, it needs to be simplified—we look for
‘trends’ to make info processing easier
• Can lead to prejudice & discrimination (to increase self-esteem about
self/in-group)
Relevant Research
Hamilton & Gifford (1976)—Illusory Correlations & Stereotypes

Aim: Investigate illusory correlations between group size & -ve

behaviors
• Illusory correlation: A cognitive mechanism where people see a
relationship between two infrequently-occurring events which
actually aren’t related
• E.g. Belonging to a minority group, occurrence of –ve behaviors
• Why is this important? Stereotypes may be formed when such
‘relationships’ between groups & behaviors arise
Relevant Research
Hamilton & Gifford (1976)—Illusory Correlations & Stereotypes

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

1st Group (Majority) 2nd Group (Minority)

No. of Ppl 26 13
+ve Behaviors 18 9
-ve Behaviors 8 4

2. Ss then estimated how often members in each group performed –ve & +ve
behaviors
Relevant Research
Hamilton & Gifford (1976)—Illusory Correlations & Stereotypes

Findings: Ss overestimated frequency at which minority group

members performed –ve behaviors
Conclusion:
• Illusory correlations are formed between –ve behaviors & group size
• For the smaller group, the –ve statements were rarer & thus more distinct
(stood out), thus the smaller group was assoc. w/ -ve traits
• May explain why –ve stereotypes are common for minority groups
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat

Aim: Investigate the basis & effect of stereotype threat

• Stereotype threat: When members of a group are aware of a
stereotype and inadvertently adjust their behavior to match it
Ss: African-American (AA) & White (W) US college students
• In US, AAs are often stereotyped as less intelligent than Ws,
stereotypically ‘enjoy’ certain things e.g. rap, basketball, etc.
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat

Procedure/Findings: 4 experiments conducted…

Experiment 1
Procedure:
1. Ss took a difficult verbal test (GRE); before test, either told that:
1. Test was indicative of intelligence (threat condition)
2. Test was not indicative of intelligence (non-threat condition)
Findings:
• AA Ss in threat condition had lower test scores than W Ss
• AA Ss in non-threat condition performed equally well as W Ss
Relevant Research
Steele & Aronson (1995)—Stereotype Threat

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

(See earlier summary)

Conclusion: Culture (namely, the cultural dimension of individualism vs

collectivism) appears to influence conformity - individualist societies
have lower rates of conformity & vice versa.
Relevant Research
Bond & Smith (1996)—Meta-Analysis of Individualism vs
Collectivism & Conformity
Aim: Investigate the effect of individualism vs collectivism of a culture
on conformity rates of said culture
Procedure: Meta-analysis of Asch line paradigm replications carried out
worldwide
Findings: Individualist societies (e.g. US, UK) tended to have lower rates
of conformity than collectivist societies (e.g. China, Japan)
Conclusion: Individualist societies tend to conform less than collectivist
ones
Enculturation
The process by which people learn the norms of their culture. This
includes:
• Cultural transmission: ‘Teaching’ of norms
• Enculturation: ‘Learning’ of norms
Enculturation may occur via…
• Active learning (i.e. participating actively in the process of learning)
• Observational learning (i.e. observing others perform a
norm/behavior)
• This may depend on cultures…
Relevant Research
Trainor et al. (2012)—Active Learning & Musical
Enculturation
Aim: Investigate if enculturation occurs from active learning.
Ss: 6-month-old Western infants
Procedure:
1. Ss, for 6 months, either did:
1. An active participatory music class involving infants & parents
2. A class w/ passive exposure to music (while playing w/ toys)
2. Ss then exposed to 2 versions of a (Western) classical music piece:
1. Tonal version: Original, unaltered version
2. Atonal version: Original but with accidentals (wrong notes)
Relevant Research
Trainor et al. (2012)—Active Learning & Musical
Enculturation
Findings:
• Ss who did the active class preferred the tonal version over the atonal
version of the piece
• Ss who did the passive class had no preference for either version
Conclusion: Active learning in a social context promotes enculturation
(in this case, sensitivity to cultural tonality)
Relevant Research
Odden & Rochat (2004)—Observational Learning &
Enculturation in Non-Western Cultures
Aim: Investigate the role of observational learning in enculturation in
children in non-Western cultures
Ss: Samoan children
• NOTE: Samoan culture scores highly on power distance, being very
hierarchical w/ questioning of authority figures viewed as
disrespectful
Procedure: Longitudinal naturalistic study using observations of
children behaving as normal; one R lived in village for 20 months
Relevant Research
Odden & Rochat (2004)—Observational Learning &
Enculturation in Non-Western Cultures
Findings:
• Ss, though rarely/never explained behaviors & norms by adults,
learned them themselves by observing adults doing them then trying
behaviors themselves
• E.g. Children would watch adults fishing (but not participate/ask for help),
then try it themselves; by age 12, most children were skilled fishermen
• Same for social norms, chores, etc.—adults never taught the norms/behaviors
but children learned them anyway (by age 15)
Conclusion: Observational learning appears to be key to enculturation,
at least in some cultures (e.g. those w/ high power distance)
Acculturation
• Process of psychological & cultural change as a result of direct contact
with & interaction between cultures.
• Berry (2008) proposes 4 acculturative strategies people can take:
Open to Change & Interaction with Other
Cultures
Yes No
Maintenance of Yes Integration Separation
Own Culture
No Assimilation Marginalization
Acculturation
• Process of acculturation may result in acculturative stress
• i.e. Psychological, somatic, & social difficulties from acculturation resulting in
mental & physical stress, e.g. anxiety, depression, etc.
• Berry asserts that taking integrative strategies results in least
acculturative stress
Relevant Research
Miranda & Matheny (2000)—Acculturative Stress in Latino
Immigrants
Aim: Investigate factors influencing acculturative stress
Ss: Latino immigrants to US
Procedure: Ss completed questionnaires & tests measuring:
• Family cohesion
• Level of acculturation
• Level of acculturative stress
• Coping strategies for stress
Relevant Research
Miranda & Matheny (2000)—Acculturative Stress in Latino
Immigrants
Findings:
• Ss w/ good coping strategies, proficiency in English & strong family
structures were less likely to experience acculturative stress
• Ss who had spent longer in the US had higher levels of acculturation
& were less likely to experience acculturative stress
Conclusion: The use of coping strategies for stress, proficiency in the
region’s native language & strong social support (e.g. from family)
reduce acculturative stress.
Relevant Research
Lueck & Wilson (2010)—Acculturative Stress in Asian-Americans

Aim: Investigate factors influencing acculturative stress

Ss: Asian-American immigrants (to US)
• From various Asian cultures
• Roughly ½ were 1st-gen immigrants (i.e. original generation in family to
immigrate)
Procedure: Ss underwent semi-structured interviews w/ interviewers of similar
cultural & linguistic backgrounds to them
• Interviews explored various themes such as levels of acculturative stress & the
impact of language proficiency, language preference, discrimination,
socioeconomic status [SES], etc. on said stress
Relevant Research
Lueck & Wilson (2010)—Acculturative Stress in Asian-Americans

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

Aim: Investigate the effect of introducing global media to a previously

media-naïve population
Ss: 2 groups of Fijian girls
Background Info:
• Fiji only got TV in mid-1990s
• Traditional Fijian body image ideal heavier/bigger than Western
cultures
• Cultural traditions protective against body image dissatisfaction
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.