P1 Psychology Exam Revision

Social identity theory

social identity theory is the way someone evaluates themselves in relation to groups. this theory was proposed by tajfel, explaining that an individual's identity is based on their membership of social groups. 3 main psychological mechanisms have been identified in the creation of social identity: 1. categorisation is the process of classifying people into groups based on traits like age, occupancy, nationality, or any other similar characteristics. we categorise objects because it makes it easier to understand, and with the same theory, we categorise people to make better sense of the social environment around us.

2. social identification is adopting the identity we see ourselves as the group we are belonging to.

3. social comparison occurs once we see ourselves as part of a group, we often compare our in-groups with other groups. in order to maintain self esteem, our groups must compare favourably to others.

SIT can explain the occurence of prejudice or discrimination because in-groups are generally seen as more favourable as a result of in-group favouritism. therefore, out-groups are seen in a more negative light. as a consequence of this, the world is divided into 'them' and 'us', which is a part of social categorisation.

SIT: Tajfel (Aim --> Procedure)

Tajfel used a true experiment and hypothesized that categorisation and discrimination occur automatically, and that no prior prejudice is required for discrimination to occur to take place in order to create a positive social identity for the group. they sampled 48 english school boys aged between 12-15, of whom had never met prior to the experiment. they were asked to rate 12 paintings that were by either of the abstract artists paul klee and wassily kandinsky. the boys were unaware of which artist had painted which painting, and were then assigned to a group based on which artist they were told they preferred.

Each boy was then given the task to award 2 other boys points, one from the same group or one from the other group. The researchers employed 2 different point allocation systems to test different outcomes.

First point allocation system: The boy was able to award the 2 boys an amount of points that added up to 15. For instance, if one boy were to recieve 10 points, the other would recieve 5. This point allocation system ensured that if one boy were to recieve more points, the score of the other boy would surely decrease.

Second point allocation system: This point system implemented the idea of profiting the other group. If a group member gave more points to the boy in their own group, that would also mean a high profit for the other group. If they were to choose a mid-range value for their own group, the other group would recieve exactly the same amount of points. Lastly, if they decided to choose a low value for another member of their own group, then that would only award 1 point to the other team.

in the first point allocation system, the results showed that the boys typically awarded more point to the members of their in-group, showing in-group favoritism.

In the second point allocation system, the results were surprising and differed from the expectations of researchers, as the boys were willing to award their own group members low value points in order to ensure that the other group recieves the least profit possible. This shows that they were doing their most to maximise the difference between their in-group and out-group. This was surprising because this meant that the boys left the study with fewer points than if they had given each other the largest number of points possible. From this experiment, we can see the natural tendency of in-group favoritism with members. Despite these meaningless groupings, the members were able to create a positive social-identity and identify with their own groups. This is shown with the point allocation systems. This study also shows that minimal contact is all that is necessary for discrimination to occur against out-groups, because it demonstrates that intergroup conflict is not necessary in order for discrimination to arise.

SIT: Abrams

Abrams used a true experiment. The aim of Abram's study was to identify whether or not an individual's social identity as a part of an in-group affected an individual's willingness to conform. 50 undergraduate students participated in the experiment. At the start of the experiment the subjects were individually introduced to 3 other confederates. They were either introduced as first-year students from the psychology department of a prestigious university— which would be considered the subject's in-groups, as they'd share the same characteristics of psychology students. The other confederates were introduced as students of an ancient history (out-group) from that same university. The participants were instructed not to talk to each other.

The researchers used the procedure of Asch Paradigm, the participants were shown a stimulus line and asked to match it with one out of three lines based on its shared length with the original line. There were 18 trials. In 9 of the trials, confederates gave the correct response while in another 9 of the trials they gave a unanimous incorrect response. The sessions took place by having all of the participants placed in a row facing the monitor. The authentic subject was always placed at the end of the row so that they could hear the other confederate's responses before making their choice.

Public condition: In the public condition all participants gave their answers aloud, and the experimenter recorded the real participant's responses.

Private condition: The experimenter would come up with the excuse of needing to 'operate the computer', therefore, giving the participant at the end of the row the notebook to record answers. This participant given the responsibility of recording responses would always be the actual subject. The three confederates would then give their responses to the subject aloud, and they would in turn be able to record their answer on the same score sheet privately.

70% of all participants conformed to an obviously incorrect response alongside other confederates on at least 1 trial. There were no gender differences observed. The actual proportion of conforming responses was 32%. Conformity was maximised in the in-group condition and minimized in the out-group condition. The results seem to indicate that social categorisation can play a key role in one's decision to conform publicly. Public conformity exceeded the usual level in the in-group condition, but was far below normal in the out-group condition. From self-categorisation theory, we tend to maximise the difference between us and the out-group. Thus in this experiment, the in-group members were seen as more correct, while out-group members are seen as less likely to be correct when participants are made conscious of their group membership.

Social cognitive theory

We model the behaviour that we see in our groups. We don’t need positive reinforcement to copy behaviours. We just need to witness it. Social Cognitive Theory is closely connected to the idea of social norms— in other words, social expectations we feel we need to fulfill in order to fit in. In SCT, there are 3 main cognitive factors that contribute to it, starting off with attention. Individuals need to learn by paying attention which is based on the model’s attractiveness, authority, or desirability in behaviour. Retention is when the observer is able to remember the behaviour in order to mimic the behaviour immediately, or after some time. Potential is the third factor. It is the observer’s personal efficacy to produce the behaviour. This may depend on the observer’s mental or physical ability to do this.

SCT: Bandura (Bobo doll)

Bandura aimed to prove that children will mimic adult’s behaviour based on passive witnessing behaviours. In this study, he focuses on children’s tendency in mimicking aggressive behaviours exhibited by adults. He used a lab experiment. 36 boys and 36 girls aged between 37 and 69 months were tested. 1 adult male model and 1 adult female model was used.

However, prior to beginning the experiment, in order to avoid bias of a concentrated group of children that are aggressive in nature, they observed the children in the nursery and judged their aggressiveness based on a 5 point scale in order to form groups that are more neutral to aggression bias.

The independent variable is manipulated in 3 different ways. 24 children will see an aggressive model, while 24 children see a non-aggressive model. These models are then split into both genders, and 6 boys and 6 girls will see one specific gender model of one category. Non-aggressive model: In this model, the adult quietly played with blocks, ignoring the bobo doll.

Aggressive model: In the aggressive model, the adult started to play with blocks, then one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll in a scripted way. The aggression was physical and verbal.

After watching the video of the models, the children were taken to stage 2 for ‘mild aggression arousal’, where there were some attractive toys but the experimenter said that those were their very best toys and were therefore reserved for other children. Then in stage 3, there were a range of toys ranging from non-aggressive to aggressive. The children’s behaviour was then observed through a one-way mirror within the room. Observations were made at 5 second intervals.

They also recorded 3 types of aggressive behaviour that was not shown by the models.

The final results of the experiment showed that the children who saw the aggressive model made more aggressive acts than those that who saw the non-aggressive model. Boys made more aggressive acts than girls (gender difference). The boys in the aggressive condition showed more aggression if the model was male rather than female. But for girls, the same-gender rule does not apply as the girls showed more physical aggression if the model was male. Though girls also showed more verbal aggression if the model was female.

Children are able to mimick behaviours exhibited by adults even if they are not paying direct attention, as the experiment was set up in such a way that the children witnessed these acts in a passive manner. This also proves that positive reinforcement/punishment/reward systems are not necessary for children to copy behaviours.

SCT: Kimball

The aim of Kimball’s study was to see if exposure to normal television viewing would lead to a change in the level of gender stereotyping in a Northern Canadian community. Kimball used a natural experiment. The participants were 536 children from 4 different communities. The children’s level of gender stereotyping was measured using the Sex Role Differentiation (SRD) scale. The SRD works by asking children to rate how appropriate behaviours are when applied to male and female, as well as how often their mother and father performs certain tasks.

This test was administered to all students in grade 6 and 9 in all of the locations covered, both before and 2 years after television was introduced. The children filled in these questionnaires during class, and the identities of the respondents remained anonymous as questions about their parents were involved. Before television: The children held a more fair view of gender attitudes compared to those that viewed children regularly. Girls also had lower levels of gender stereotyping than boys at the beginning of the study.

After television: Two years after obtaining television, the gender stereotyping had significantly increased in both boys and girls. Looking for carefully at the results, the boys’ stereotypes with regards to gender and jobs had increased significantly. The results indicate that television, or any media for this instance is responsible for increased levels of gender stereotyping. This is based on the social cognitive theory that modeling behaviours of characters children want to identify with will alter their perception on subjects, including gender stereotypes through observation— which in this case is through observing/watching the contents of television.