Sociocultural Approach Studies

what are 2 studies that talk about Social Identity Theory (SIT)

1. Tajfel et al. (1971)

2. Hilliard & Liben (2010)

what are 2 studies that talk about Social Groups & Influence on Behaviour

1. Tajfel et al. (1971)

2. Hilliard & Liben (2010)

what are 2 studies that talk about Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

1. Bandura et al. (1961)

2. Williams (1986)

what are 2 studies that talk about Formation of Stereotypes

1. Hamilton & Gifford (1976)

2. Hilliard & Liben (2010)

what are 2 studies that talk about Effects of Stereotypes

1. Spencer et al. (1999)

2. Steele & Aronson (1995)

what are 2 studies that talk about Culture & Its Influence on Behaviour/Cognition

1. Berry et al. (2006)

2. Hofstede (1980)

what are 2 studies that talk about Cultural Groups & Their Influence

1. Berry et al. (2006)

2. Hofstede (1980)

what are 2 studies that talk about Cultural Dimensions

1. Berry et al. (2006)

2. Hofstede (1980)

what are 2 studies that talk about Cultural Influences on Identity/Attitudes

1. Berry et al. (2006)

2. Hofstede (1980)

what are 2 studies that talk about Enculturation

1. Fagot (1978)

2. Williams (1986)

what are 2 studies that talk about Norms & Their Influence

1. Hilliard & Liben (2010)

2. Odden & Rochat (2004)

what are 2 studies that talk about Acculturation & Assimilation

1. Lueck & Wilson (2010)

2. Berry (1997)

Aim of Williams (1986)

To investigate children's behaviour before and after TV had been introduced to the town & compare their behaviour with towns that have TV.

procedure of Williams (1986)

1. The researchers carried out a natural experiment, not manipulating an independent variable, in a remote region of Canada.

2. The researchers assessed children's gender stereotyping just before television was introduced and then repeated this assessment two years later.

reults of Williams (1986)

They found that children had developed more traditional thinking about gender roles. It appears that the children may have learned their gender roles by watching the behavior of the people on television through social cognitive theory (observational learning).

conclusion of Williams (1986)

The study concluded that the introduction of television led to a significant increase in aggressive behavior among children. Additionally, it suggested that TV exposure might negatively impact creativity and reading skills while reducing time spent on social interactions. This supports social learning theory (Bandura), as children may model aggressive behaviors they see on TV.

limitation Williams (1986)

1. high ecological validity: because the researcher was simply measuring an effect that was naturally occurring in a natural experiment where no IV is manipulated.

strengths Williams (1986)

1. low internal validity: As there were no controls during the two year period, confounding variables could have affected children's stereotyping rather than just watching television. For example, it is possible that direct tuition from their peer groups or adults in their lives may have played a role in their enculturation into Canadian culture.

2. Demand characteristics may have been subject in the children's self-reported data and may have not represented the sample's actual behavior. In addition, it's unclear how many hours the children actually watched television and what they watched.

aim of Fagot (1978)

The aim of this study was to observe parental reactions to behaviour that wasn't deemed appropriate for the child's gender, at least according to American culture at the time.

procedure of Fagot (1978)

24 families, 12 families with boys and 12 with girls. Observers used an observation checklist of 46 child behaviours and 19 reactions by parents. There were five 60-minute observations completed for each family over a five-week period. The observer used time sampling, making note of the child's behaviour every 60 seconds and then noting the parents' response. Two observers were used to establish inter-coder reliability. The agreement between the two observers on the child's behavior was 0.93 and for parents' reaction 0.83.

results of Fagot (1978)

Parents reacted significantly more favorably to the child when the child was engaged in gender-appropriate behavior and were more likely to give negative responses to "gender inappropriate" behaviors

conclusion of Fagot (1978)

In the follow up interviews with the parents, it was found that the parents perceptions of their interactions with their children did not correlate with what was observed by the researchers, indicating that this is not a conscious behaviour.

This study demonstrates enculturation as it shows parents directly teaching and instructing children about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour according to their culture's gender norms.

limitation of Fagot (1978)

Limited to a single culture. Difficult to generalise.

strength of Fagot (1978)

Uses method triangulation, interviews & observations. Increases the credibility of the findings.

Evaluation of William (1986) and Fagot (1978)

• Strengths of both studies:

  • Both emphasize the role of enculturation in gender role development.

  • Complementary focus: Fagot on direct tuition, Williams on observational learning.

• Limitations of both studies:

  • Both lack generalizability due to cultural and situational contexts.

  • Low internal validity due to the absence of controlled variables.

• Overall contribution: Together, the studies provide a fuller understanding of how enculturation occurs through both direct and indirect mechanisms.

aim of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

The aim of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976) study was to investigate how an illusory correlation between group size and negative behavior might occur, particularly when the minority group (Group B) is associated with negative actions despite no actual correlation.

procedure of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

Participants were introduced to two fictional groups: Group A: A larger group with 26 members. Group B: A smaller group with 13 members. Descriptions: Participants read descriptions of both groups, where each group exhibited a mix of positive and negative behaviors: Group A: 18 positive behaviors and 8 negative behaviors. Group B: 9 positive behaviors and 4 negative behaviors. Despite the differences in group size and the types of behaviors described, the actual correlation between group membership and behavior type was nonexistent.

results of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

Illusory correlation: Participants attributed more negative behaviors to Group B (the minority group) than to Group A (the majority group). Even though Group B’s total number of negative behaviors was lower than that of Group A, the combination of Group B's smaller size and the negative behaviors made them stand out more in the participants' perceptions.

conclsuion of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

The study demonstrated the phenomenon of illusory correlation, where participants mistakenly associated the minority group (Group B) with more negative behaviors, even though the actual data showed no such correlation. This study highlights how distinctiveness—in this case, the minority group’s smaller size and fewer positive behaviors—can distort perceptions and reinforce stereotypes about groups. It provides insight into how cognitive biases, such as illusory correlation, can influence people’s stereotypical thinking and the way they perceive different social groups.

strength of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

• Applicability to Minority Groups: The research helps explain why negative stereotypes tend to be more prevalent for minority groups compared to majority groups, highlighting the role of social categorization and bias in shaping societal views.

• Impact on Policy: The findings have practical applications, such as influencing policies where or ethnicity of offenders is no longer reported in certain countries, reducing potential stereotyping and bias.

limitation of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

• Artificiality of the Task: The methodology, such as showing slides, does not replicate real-life scenarios where stereotypes are more deeply ingrained and influenced by complex social interactions.

• Limited Real-World Validity: The simplified experimental setup might not capture the nuanced ways stereotypes are formed and perpetuated in naturalistic environments, reducing ecological validity.

Evaluation of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976) AND Hillard and Liben (2010)

In terms of the formation of stereotypes, both Hamilton and Gifford (1976) and Hillard and Liben (2010) contribute valuable insights. Hamilton and Gifford's study (1976) explored the illusory correlation phenomenon, where participants developed negative stereotypes about a minority group based on a disproportionate association between undesirable behavior and the minority group. This highlights how stereotypes can form due to cognitive biases, such as overgeneralization, even when no real correlation exists. Hillard and Liben (2010) examined the impact of gender-role stereotypes and how children’s perceptions of gender-appropriate behavior were shaped through media exposure. Their research emphasized how social cognitive theory explains the role of observational learning in the formation of stereotypes, as children internalize gender expectations from observing models in their environment. Both studies illustrate how stereotypes can emerge through both cognitive biases and social learning, reinforcing the notion that stereotypes are not only cognitive constructs but also socially learned behaviors influenced by exposure to societal norms and media representations.

aim of Hillard and Liben (2010)

To investigate how social category salience affects the development of stereotypes and inter-group behavior in elementary school children, based on Social Identity Theory.

procedure of Hillard and Liben (2010)

Children completed a gender attitude test (POAT-AM) to measure their "gender flexibility" by indicating which gender should perform certain activities.

Their play behavior was observed to determine the extent of interaction with same-sex and opposite-sex peers.

Preschools were randomly assigned to either a high salience condition or a low salience condition.

In the high salience condition, children were made aware of their gender through various cues like lining up by sex and gender-specific language.

In the low salience condition, no changes were made to the classroom environment.

The study lasted for two weeks, after which the children were debriefed to counteract any increase in stereotyping.

results of Hillard and Liben (2010)

After two weeks, children in the high salience condition showed significantly increased gender stereotypes and decreased play with other-sex peers.

In the low salience condition, there was no significant change in play behavior or gender stereotypes.

conclusion of Hillard and Liben (2010)

The study concluded that making gender more salient in a classroom setting increases gender stereotyping in children. Children who were exposed to gendered language and categorization (e.g., teachers emphasizing “boys” and “girls” as separate groups) showed stronger gender stereotypes compared to those in the control condition. This suggests that social environments play a key role in reinforcing gender norms, supporting the idea that gender-related beliefs are shaped by social cognitive theory and enculturation.

strenghts of Hillard and Liben (2010)

Experimental design allowed for the manipulation of the independent variable in the children's natural environment.

The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between social category salience and the development of stereotypes and inter-group behavior.

Field experiment design provided high ecological validity.

limitation of Hillard and Liben (2010)

The study suffers from sampling bias, as participants were most likely middle to upper-class children from preschools with gender-neutral policies.

The study's low internal validity due to the inability to strictly control the environment.

Ethical concerns about potential harm to the children's behavior, although debriefing was provided to mitigate negative effects.

participant of Hilard and Liben (2010)

Fifty-seven US children aged 3 years 1 month to 5 years 6 months from two preschools participated in the study. Each school had an equal number of male and female children.

Evaluation of Hilard and Liben (2010) and Tajfel (1971)

Tajfel (1971) and Hilliard and Liben (2010) both provide valuable insights into Social Identity Theory (SIT) by demonstrating the effects of social categorization on group dynamics and stereotypes. Tajfel's study shows how minimal group categorization can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, even in artificial contexts. However, its low ecological validity and reductionist approach limit its real-world applicability. Conversely, Hilliard and Liben investigate the impact of categorization in a naturalistic classroom setting, illustrating how labeling by gender increases stereotypes and in-group favoritism over time. While this study has higher ecological validity and practical applications, it is limited by potential confounding variables and ethical concerns. Together, these studies underscore the pervasive influence of social categorization on identity and behavior, offering complementary perspectives on SIT.

Aim of Tajfel (1971)

To test whether the simple act of grouping was enough to produce prejudice between groups of very similar people even when there is no history or competition between the groups.

procedure of Tajfel (1971)

Shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen, and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. Assigned to groups at random categorized as "over-estimator", "under-estimator", etc. Had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment.The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or different category. In the second experiment, they were allocated to groups based on their supposed artistic preferences for 2 painters (Kandinsky and Klee). They had to award money to the other boys.

results of Tajfel (1971)

A large majority of the boys gave more money to members of their own category (in-group) than to members of the other categories (out-group).In the second experiment, the boys tried to maximize the difference between 2 groups

conclsuion of Tajfel (1971)

The researchers concluded that both experiments indicated that the boys adopted a strategy of in-group favouritism and that in-group and out-group do influence one's behaviour.

strengths of Tajfel (1971)

• Controlled Environment:

  • The use of a laboratory experiment ensured high control over extraneous variables, allowing for clear cause-and-effect relationships.

  • Standardized procedures made replication possible, enhancing the reliability of the findings.

• Insights into Prejudice and Discrimination:

  • Demonstrated the minimal conditions required for in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, providing valuable insights into the social identity theory.

  • Offers practical implications for understanding and addressing societal issues related to prejudice and discrimination.

limitation of Tajfel (1971)

• Low Generalizability:

  • The sample was unrepresentative, consisting only of teenage boys from the same school, limiting the applicability of the findings to other groups such as females, different age groups, or cultures.

• Low Ecological Validity:

  • The artificial task (point allocation in matrices) and laboratory setting do not reflect real-life social interactions or discrimination.

  • Possible demand characteristics may have influenced participants' behavior.

sample of tajfel (1971)

Participants were 64 schoolboys, aged 14-15, from a state school in the UK. They went to a psychology laboratory in groups of 8. All knew each other well before the experiment.

aim of Steele & Aronson (1995)

To investigate how stereotype threat affects performance on a test for African American and White students.

prodecure of Steele & Aronson (1995)

• Participants: African American and White college students.

• They were given a verbal test, but researchers manipulated the test instructions:

  1. Stereotype threat condition – Students were told the test was an “intelligence test”, which could trigger anxiety about racial stereotypes (e.g., the stereotype that Black students perform worse).

  2. Non-stereotype threat condition – Students were told the test was just to study problem-solving ability, removing racial performance pressure.

• Performance was measured and compared across groups.

• Researchers also measured anxiety levels to see if stereotype threat affected stress and confidence.

results of Steele & Aronson (1995)

• African American students in the intelligence condition scored lower than those in the problem-solving condition.

• White students performed the same in both conditions.

conclusion of Steele & Aronson (1995)

• Awareness of negative stereotypes impairs performance, supporting stereotype threat theory.

strengths of Steele & Aronson (1995)

✅ Provides strong experimental evidence for stereotype threat.
✅ Controlled design, ensuring causality between stereotype threat and performance.

limitation of Steele & Aronson (1995)

❌ Lab setting may reduce ecological validity.
❌ Only focused on one academic task—may not generalize to all situations.

ethical considerations of Steele & Aronson (1995)

✅ Good: Participants were debriefed afterward to minimize distress.
❌ Bad: Potential psychological stress from stereotype threat.

aim of Berry et al. (2006)

To examine how different acculturation strategies affect psychological adaptation in immigrants.

procedure of Berry et al. (2006)

• Conducted a large-scale survey with over 5,000 immigrants and non-immigrants from 13 countries.

• Participants were asked about their acculturation strategies, which were categorized into:

  • Assimilation (adopting the new culture, rejecting their original one)

  • Integration (maintaining their original culture while adopting the new one)

  • Separation (rejecting the new culture, keeping their original one)

  • Marginalization (rejecting both cultures)

• Psychological adjustment was measured using self-reported well-being and stress levels.

• The results were analyzed to see how acculturation strategies affected mental health and adaptation.

results of Berry et al. (2006)

• Integration (maintaining own culture + adopting new culture) led to better mental health.

• Marginalization (rejecting both cultures) was linked to higher stress and poor adaptation.

conclsuion of Berry et al. (2006)

The way immigrants adapt to a new culture influences psychological well-being.

strength of Berry et al. (2006)

✅ Large sample size increases generalizability.
✅ Cross-cultural approach provides broad insights into acculturation.

limitation og Berry et al. (2006)

❌ Self-reported data may be subject to bias.
❌ Doesn’t consider personality differences in adaptation.

ethical consideration of Berry et al. (2006)

✅ Good: Participants were volunteers, ensuring informed consent.
❌ Bad: Some participants may have relived traumatic migration experiences.

aim of Hofstede (1980)

To identify cultural differences in workplaces across countries.

procedure of Hofstede (1980)

• Surveyed 117,000 IBM employees from 50+ countries to identify differences in workplace culture.

• The survey measured values, beliefs, and behaviors related to decision-making, authority, and group identity.

• Based on the results, Hofstede identified six cultural dimensions, including:

  • Individualism vs. Collectivism (focus on self vs. community)

  • Power Distance (acceptance of hierarchy and authority)

  • Masculinity vs. Femininity (achievement vs. quality of life values)

  • Others like uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation

• The dimensions were used to compare cultural attitudes across countries.

results of Hofstede (1980)

Different cultures have distinct values (e.g., Western cultures favor individualism, Eastern cultures favor collectivism).

conclsuion of Hofstede (1980)

Cultural values shape workplace behavior, communication, and decision-making.

strength of Hofstede (1980)

✅ Large, diverse sample, making it widely applicable.
✅ Practical applications in business, psychology, and sociology.

limitation of Hofstede (1980)

❌ Focused only on workplace culture, limiting personal cultural behaviors.
❌ May overgeneralize cultures, ignoring subcultural differences.

ethical considerations of Hofstede (1980)

✅ Good: Data was anonymous, ensuring confidentiality.
❌ Bad: Study reinforces stereotypes about national cultures.

aim of Odden & Rochat (2004)

To investigate observational learning in Samoan children (how they learn cultural norms without direct instruction).

procedure of Odden & Rochat (2004)

• Naturalistic observational study in a Samoan village, focusing on children (4-12 years old).

• Researchers observed how children learned behaviors (e.g., fishing, social norms) without direct instruction.

• Interviews were conducted with children, parents, and elders to understand learning processes.

• Researchers also tested children's knowledge of Samoan cultural rules and norms.

results of Odden & Rochat (2004)

• Children learned without direct instruction—they simply watched adults and copied them.

• By age 10, they understood complex cultural rules (e.g., social hierarchy).

conclusion of Odden & Rochat (2004)

Supports social learning theory—cultural knowledge is transmitted through observation and participation.

strength of Odden & Rochat (2004)

✅ Naturalistic observation = high ecological validity.
✅ Shows how culture shapes learning without direct teaching.

limitation of Odden & Rochat (2004)

❌ Small sample = limited generalizability beyond Samoa.
❌ Only observational, lacking a control group for comparison.

ethical consideration of Odden & Rochat (2004)

✅ Good: No manipulation—children were studied naturally.
❌ Bad: Possible observer bias, as researchers interpreted behavior.

aim of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

• To investigate factors that reduce acculturative stress in Asian American immigrants.

procedure of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

• 2,000+ Asian immigrants and Asian Americans in the U.S. were interviewed about their experiences with acculturation.

• The interviews measured acculturative stress, cultural identity, language proficiency, and discrimination.

• Participants were asked about:

  • Bilingualism (if speaking both languages reduced stress)

  • Family support (if strong family ties helped with adaptation)

  • Discrimination experiences

• Responses were analyzed to identify protective and risk factors for acculturative stress.

results of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

• Strong bilingual proficiency & social support = lower stress.

• Discrimination & lack of family cohesion = higher stress.

conclusion of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

Acculturative stress is influenced by language, discrimination, and family support.

strenght of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

✅ Large, diverse sample increases reliability.
✅ In-depth interviews provide rich qualitative data.

limitation of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

❌ Self-reported data = possible bias (social desirability).
❌ Focuses only on Asian populations, limiting generalizability.

ethical consideration of Lueck & Wilson (2010)

✅ Good: Participants had confidentiality and the right to withdraw.
❌ Bad: Discussing discrimination might have caused emotional distress.