IB Psychology SL Sociocultural approach ERQ
Question includes
Social Identity theory
Social cognitive theory
Formation of stereotype
Effects of stereotype
Cultural dimensions
Influence of culture on one behaviour
Enculturation
Acculturation
Theory - SIT was proposed by Tajfel 1979
- He identified three psychological mechanisms involved in the creation of a SIT
- Social categorization, social comparison, and the tendency for people to use group membership
as a source of self-esteem
- SIT based on the cognitive process of social categorization
- Is the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics,
nationality, age, occupation
- This categorization gives rise to in-group (us), and out-group (them)
- Tajfel argues that even when people are randomly assigned to a group, they automatically think
of that group as their in-group (us) and all others as an out-group (them)
- Tajfel found that when people are randomly assigned to a group they see themselves as being
similar in attitude and behaviour, and this is apparently enough for a bond to be formed among
group members
-
Study Tajfel Abrams et al
Aim + Hyp Aim: Aim
- To investigate if intergroup - Determine if in-group identity would affect
discrimination would take place based one’s willingness to conform
on being put into different groups
Hypothesis
- Categorization and discrimination
operate automatically, even when
there is not necessarily any prior
prejudice
Procedure - Sample: 48 boys ages 14-15 y.o. - Independent samples design
- Asked to rate 12 paintings by the - Four groups and manipulated 2 different
abstract expressionist painters Klee independent variables
and Kandinsky - One IV was whether the confederates
- They were not aware of which artist were from an in-group (psych student)
had painted which painting during the or an out-group (ancient history
test students)
- The boys were then randomly - Second IV was whether the
allocated to one of two groups and participant’s responses were public or
told that they had preferred either private
Klee or Kandinsky
- Each boy was then given the task to
In-group public response Out-group public
award points to two other boys, one
response
from the same group and one from
the other group In-group private Out-group private
- The only info that each boy was given response response
was the code numbers and the name
of the group of the two boys they - 50 undergrad students enrolled in
were supposed to award introductory psychology course participated
- There were two systems of awarding - At the start of the experiment, the three
points that were employed by the confederates were introduced either as
first-year students from the psychology
, researchers department of prestigious university
- Point allocation system 1: The point (in-group) or as students of ancient history
scores for each boy were linked so (out-group) from the same uni
that the sum of the two scores was 15 - As in the asch paradigm, the participants were
- If a participant choose 8, the shown a stimulus line, and then three other
other boy automatically got a lines
score of 7 (15-8) - One of which was the same length as
- This means that as the score the stimulus line
for the partici[ant increases, - The task was to identify which of the three
the score of the other boy lines attached the stimulus line
decreases - There were 18 trials
- Point allocation system 2: - In the 9 trials, the confederates gave
- If a Klee member chose a high the correct response
value for another Klee - In 9 of the trials, the confederates
member, it would give a gave a unanimous, incorrect response
higher profit to the out-group - In each session the confederate and one
- If a Klee member chose a participant sat in a row, facing the monitor
mid-range value for another - The participant was always placed at one end
Klee member, it would give of the row
the same points for the other - The group always gave their judgement in
group turn, beginning at the opposite end from the
- If a Klee member chose a low participant
value for another Klee - In the public condition, all 4 members of the
member, it would award only group gave their judgement aloud, and the
1 point to the other team experimenter recorded the real participant’s
responses
- In the private condition, the experimenter
asked if one of the participants would note
down the responses, in order to leave her free
to ‘operate the computer’
- The real participant who happened to be
nearest was asked if they would like to record
response
- The three confederates then gave their
judgements aloud in turn and the real
participant recorded their responses on a
score sheet along with their own privately
Results - In the first system of point allocation, - 77% of all the participants conformed to the
the boys generally awarded more erroneous confederate judgements on at least
points to the members of their one trial
in-group = showing in-group - There were no gender differences observed
favouritism - The actual proportion of confirming responses
- In the second system, the boys were was 138 out of 432
willing to give their own eam fewer - Conformity was maximised in the in-group
points with the goal of maximising the public condition with the mean number of
difference between their in-group and confirming responses of 5.32 and minimised in
the out-group the out-group public condition
- One of the most obvious conclusion is - The in-group private and out-group private did
the natural tendency of members of a not differ significantly
group to favour their in-group
, - Despite the seemingly meaningless - The results seem to indicate that social
groupings created by the categorization can play a key role in one’s
experimenters, the participants were decision to conform publicly
able to identify with their respective - public conformity exceeded the usual level in
groups and create a positive social the in-group condition but was far below
identity by giving their in-group more normal in the out-group condition.
points - The explanation for this, from self-categorization
- Tajfel demonstrated that a “minimal theory, is that we tend to exaggerate the
group”is all that is necessary for difference between us and the out-group, while
individuals to exhibit discrimination feeling that members of our own group share a
against an out-group common set of traits.
- This experiment is considered a - Thus, in this experiment, in-group members may
classic in psychology because it be seen as more correct, while out-group
demonstrates that intergroup conflict members are seen as less likely to be correct
is not required for discrimination to when participants are made conscious of their
group membership.
occur
- A follow-up study done by Tajfel &
Billig (1973) showed that even when
members of the groups were aware
that the groupings were completely
random and not based on any criteria,
the participants still showed in-group
favouritism
Evaluation Strengths: Strenghts:
- The experiment had a high level of
control. Confounding variables were
minimised Limitations:
- The procedure can be replicated to - Low ecological validity = may not predict what
establish reliability would happen in naturalistic situation
Limitations: - Ethical concerns about the use of deception
- The task the participants were asked - Made up of uni students = difficult to
to was highly artificial; the study lacks generalise
ecological validity - Done in an individualistic society = culturally
- This may not reflect actual biassed
behaviour in a naturalistic - Isolate a single variable to test its role in
setting conformity. In real life, there may be several
- The boys may have shown demand variables that interact to determine
characteristics, trying to please the conformity behaviours
researcher - The manipulation of the independent variable
- The boys may have and the high level of control in the experiment
interpreted the task as allows us to see a casual relationship between
competitive and tried to ‘win’ group membership and the dependent
- Sampling bias-- the study was carried variable- the rate of conformity to an incorrect
out on British schoolboys. It is difficult response
to generalise the results to women,
adults, or other cultures.
Conclusion
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller chloe10. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
