1. SOCIOCULTURAL LOA

2. Evaluate SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY, making reference to relevant studies.
Key Concepts:
Social Categorization
Social Identity
Social Comparison
Positive Distinctiveness
We all strive for positive self-concept, our thinking in groups supports this desire.

3. SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION: dividing social environments into in-groups and out-groups. Out-group homogeneity
SOCIAL IDENTITY: part of our self-concept that is based on membership in groups (identifying self as a group member – not an individual)
SOCIAL COMPARISON – process of comparing our group to other groups. Tied to POSITIVE DISTINCTIVENESS – the desire to show our group is better.
Social identity is not about personal relationships or personality characteristics, it’s about intergroup behaviors.

4. Tying it all together
Principle of SCOLA suggests we have a tendency to form groups. Part of group formation is categorization. If we are group members that helps to define who we are. If we are members in groups, and categorize them – we also have a desire for positive self-concept.
Desire for positive self-concept can lead to:
Ethnocentrism
In-group favoritism
Stereotypical thinking
Conformity to in-group norms

5. RESEARCH TAJFEL (1971) SHERIF (1954) – Robber’s Cave Study
Assigned boys to groups. Boys then played a game where they assigned points to other people – members of their own group vs. members of out-groups.
Participants showed a tendency toward maximizing point distinction.
SHERIF (1954) – Robber’s Cave Study
Field experiment – researchers created two groups from teenage boys that did not know each other. Each group had bonded, and then competed with the other. Led to aggressive behavior against the out-group.
Tajfel – groups assigned by preference for a particular painter --- super artificial situation; also, experiment is supposed to demonstrate how people “naturally” form groups and compete, but they could have just been responding to the demand characteristics of the experiment.
Sherif – the eagles vs. the rattlers, name calling and taunting to burning the flags of the other and ransacking the others’ cabin. Described the other according to out group homogeneity. --- Artificial vs. Ecologically valid? Field experiment, but the groups are not natural. Also, issues of ethics and sampling.

6. Money – reward or penalty – fractions of a penny
Money – reward or penalty – fractions of a penny. Distinction between groups was the most important factor in the choices made.

7. RESEARCH YUKI ET AL (2005) CASTANO and GINER-SOROLLA(2006)
Compared American and Japanese students in a “money sharing” game. American students trusted in-group members far more than any others; Japanese students trusted in-group and potentially connected member more.
CASTANO and GINER-SOROLLA(2006)
Hypothetical/historical scenarios where participants were asked to judge humanity of a group that experienced tragedy through connection to the participant’s in-group. Participants tended to “infrahumanize” when the tragedy was the direct result of the actions of their in-groups.
Yuki – participants were always the recipients that had to trust the other (though it was really just a computer). In group member (same university), out group member (diff university), potentially connected person (diff. university where participant knew someone). Americans – made judgments based on categories while Japanese students were more likely to make judgments based on relationships.

8. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EVALUATE?
STRENGTHS
LIMITATIONS
Research supports the theory.
Theory can be used to explain other phenomena – like stereotyping.
Does the theory predict behavior? Or just explain it after the fact?
Are there some cases when personal identity is stronger than group identity?
Too reductionist? Other environmental factors than group identity may impact behavior.

9. Explain SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, making reference to two relevant studies.
Combines behavioral (operant conditioning) learning theories with cognition; direct and indirect learning.
Observational learning – learning by observing and imitating others.
Reinforcement can be cognitive – perceived in others or expected through reasoning.
Social Learning Theory is BIDIRECTIONAL
Learning is in a cultural context – so the theory is culturally relevant!
Bidirectional – biological factors like genes prepare us for learning – but modeling and self-efficacy in a cultural context are the determining factors of learning

10. Key Concepts - Modeling
Factors required for learning
Attention – pay attention to model
Retention – remember the behavior
Motor reproduction – be able to reproduce it
Motivation – have the desire to reproduce
Factors to influence motivation
Identification with model
Reinforcement
Liking the model

11. Key Concept – Self Efficacy
One’s belief in ability to accomplish goals / complete a task.
Important cognitive aspect of social learning theory – key to the motivation aspect of imitating a modeled behavior.

12. Bandura – Bobo Doll Studies
1961 Study
Children observed either an aggressive adult or a non- aggressive adult in a room. Children were then taken to another room – frustrated – then put in a room with toys for observation.
Those exposed to an aggressive model were significantly more aggressive. Boys more so than girls, and those exposed to a same-sex aggressive model were more so as well.
1965 Study
Children view recording of adults acting aggressively. Conditions: 1. Just shown video 2. Adult rewarded after behavior 3. Adult punished after behavior.
Groups 1 and 2 exhibited more aggressive behavior, but when all groups were reinforced, they all acted aggressively.
Study showed vicarious learning – questions of ecological validity, does not necessarily apply to all behaviors

13. Alternative studies Gergely et al (2002)
14 month old babies observe adults turn on a lightbox with their foreheads (hands were available) – 70% repeated.
Other group observed same behavior but with hands occupied – 21% repeated.
Charlton et al (2002) – St. Helena study
TV first introduced in 1995 – observed behavior of kids aged 3-8 on playgrounds before and after TV introduced.
No increase in anti-social behavior was observed – even after 5 years exposure.

14. Biological explanation
Mirror neurons – nerve cells responsible for a specific movement that fire when we observe another moving in that same way.
May also be active when decoding the intention of another.
Iacoboni et al (2005) – higher brain activation in a known mirror neuron area when participants were asked to interpret intentions of others in a video clip.
Ramachandran (2011?) argues that mirror neuron deficiencies are the cause of autism – although the research on this is somewhat mixed (perhaps the result of varieties in autism itself)

15. Discuss the use of compliance techniques
Conformity vs. Compliance
Indirect pressure vs. direct pressure to follow the majority
“Yielding to social pressure in one’s public behavior, even though private beliefs may not have changed”
Compliance Technique: ways in which individuals are influenced to comply with the demands of others.

16. Factors that influence compliance
Authority – individual requesting (think Milgram)
Commitment – prior agreement
Liking – based on the individual requesting
Reciprocity – need to return the favor
Scarcity – “rare” opportunities can’t be missed
Social proof – buy into compliance when others exhibit the behavior

17. Technique: Foot in the door
Ask a small request of another (one they are almost certain to accept), then ask a larger request of that person (that they likely would not have accepted at first).
Commitment is a key component
Freedman and Fraser (1966) – “drive safe” signs – 17% vs. 76%
Petrova et al (2007) – individualism vs. collectivism and compliance
Asian internationals – 10%....44%
Americans – 8% …. 69%

18. Technique: Door in the face
Request something large from an individual – something they are likely to turn down – then reduce that request to something smaller (what was desired in the first place).
Reciprocity is a key component
Cialdini et al (1975) – will you volunteer to chaperone a trip to the zoo (17% agree) vs. first ask to volunteer weekly for two years, then decrease (50% agree).

19. Technique: Lowballing
Make an offer less attractive after a person has already agreed to it.
Commitment is key component
Cialdini et al (1974) – ask students to participate in study: 7am vs. no time at first
24% vs. 56% - then when told the time 95% still show up

20. Evaluate research on conformity to group norms
Sherif (1935) – what was it?
Asch (1951) – what was it?
Abrams et al (1990) – Asch paradigm using a psychology student participant in a group of other psychology students vs. history students.
100% conformed at least once in the psych group
50% conformed at least once in the history group
Asch – 76% conformed at least once; conformed in about 1/3 of trials

21. Explanations of conformity
Informational Social Influence
Normative Social Influence
Referent Informational Influence – conformity has more to do with in-group norms. We conform out of a sense of belonging (we don’t conform to other people, but to a norm).
People are just a source of norms

22. Evaluation – Asch Paradigm
Strengths
Weaknesses
Replicated many times
Space, time, observer triangulation!
Artificiality
Ecological validity
Ethical considerations
Bias in interpretation?
Gender inconsistency
Looks only at the individual process, not the group.
Bias in interpretation – should we focus on how many people did not conform?

23. Discuss factors influencing conformity
Culture
Group size
Group agreement
Minority opinion

24. Culture
Using the Asch paradigm, levels of conformity have decreased in the US since the 1950s
Collectivist cultures tend to have higher rates of conformity
Matsuda (1985) – tried to explain why there were lower levels of conformity in Japan than US
Female students were placed in differing level intimacy groups – using a modified Asch paradigm.
Most conformity the result of normative comparisons – highest in the seken group
Context is key in Japanese culture
Bond and Smith (1996) meta analysis – found conformity rates of 14% in Belgium, but 58% of Indians living in Fiji
Uchi (in group); Seken (girls asked to give self presentations to others they didn’t know); Soto (didn’t know each other) --- Amae – mutual understanding among members that allows some deviation

25. Group Factors Conformity higher in: Size – Asch (1955) Agreement
Larger groups, in-groups, high ambiguity situations
Size – Asch (1955)
one confederate: 3%; 2 confed.: 14%; 3 confed: 32%
Agreement
Unanimity was an important factor – if there was any dissenter conformity dropped to almost nothing
Minority opinions: Moscovici and Lage (1976)
Four participants and two confederates – confederates said a blue/green color was green
Minority was able to influence majority members to change opinion about 1/3 of the time.
Why minority opinions – it can produce uncertainty/doubt – leads to informational social influence. Minority shows that there is an alternative, and consistency in that alternative can be convincing.