Sociocultural flashcards - case studies

Hamilton and Gifford

aim: test illusory correlation, do people over-associate negative behaviour with a minority group - create negative stereotypes

procedure:

• 40 American undergrads

• view slides with statements of group A (majority: 26) and group (minority: 13)

• statements were +ve or -ve

completed:

• trait ratings of both groups (20 traits)

• attribution booklet (decided if each statement was from A or B)

• estimate how many statements were “undesirable” for each group

Findings:

• trait ratings: group A rated more +vely and less -vely than group B

• attribution/recall: more +ve statements linked to group A, more -ve statements linked to group B

Fagot

aim: to see whether parents reinforce gender-typical behaviour differently in boys vs. girls, whether this matches parents’ stated beliefs about gender roles

procedure:

• 24 families (12 boys, 12 girls)

• naturalistic observations using a checklist (46 child behaviours, 19 parent reactions)

• families had 5×60 min observations across 5 weeks

• recorded behaviour every 60s + parent response

• after, parents rated behaviours as boy/ girl/ neutral

findings:

• parents responded more +vely to gender-typical behaviour and more -vely to cross-sex behaviour

• boys were left alone more than girls

• boys got more +ve responses for playing with blocks than girls

• girls got more -ve responses for manipulating objects than boys

questionnaire: parents said help-seeking isn’t sex-typed but they rewarded girls more → suggests parents unaware of how they gender socialise

GRAVE:

G - low: sampling bias (all families linked to uni, all white, all American) + small sample (hard to generalise)

R - high: 2 observers reduced personal bias

A - useful for understanding gender role socialisation in early childhood

V - high ecological validity, but demand characteristics (parents knew they were being watched)

E - consent (family life was observed)

Bandura

aim: test whether children imitate aggressive behaviour after observing an adult model, whether imitation is affected by model type and model sex

procedure:

• 72 ppts (36 boys, 36 girls) pre-tested + matched for baseline aggression

conditions:

• aggressive model (watched adult act aggressively towards bobo doll)

• non-aggressive model (watched adult play calmly and ignore bobo)

• control (no model observed)

children were mildly frustrated (toys removed) and placed in a room with aggressive + non-aggressive toys while observed.

findings:

• aggressive model (showed more aggression than non-aggressive model)

• boys more aggressive than boys

• boy imitated male aggressive model more than a female one

• girls showed more physical aggression after male model

• girls showed more verbal aggression after female model

GRAVE:

G - low: small sample + kids from Stanford families (not representative)

R - high: standardised procedure

A - useful for social learning theory but doesn’t test if aggression is biological

V - high internal validity (controlled + matched pairs) but low ecological validity (lab is artificial)

E - exposed kids to adult aggression, caused stress + no long term follow up

Sherif et al

aim: observe how group norms and prejudice form natural and see if conflict can be reduced by superordinate goals

procedure:

22 boys, randomly split into 2 groups, realistic summer camp was run so it wasn’t known that it was an experiment

• group formation: groups kept separate, bonding activities

• friction phase: introduced competition + unequal situations = conflict grew

• cooling off: ratings of in-group vs. out-group

• integration: created superordinate problems (truck breaks down) requiring both groups to cooperate

findings:

• competition led to hostility + prejudice (stronger in-group solidarity, negative out-group ratings)

• boys described their in-group +vely and the out-group -vely

• introducing superordinate goals reduced tension and improved relations

GRAVE

G - low: 22 boys from 1 culture + similar background

R - low: field study = less control (hard to replicate)

A - useful, it supports SIT but may oversimplify big social conflicts

V - high ecological validity, low internal validity

E - deception and possible harm (some boys showed anxiety)

Hilliard and Liben

aim: to test whether making gender more noticeable increases gender stereotypes and reduces out-group play in preschool children

procedure:

• 57 US preschoolers from 2 preschools

• pre-test and post-test over 2 weeks

pre test: attitude test (kids chose boy/girl/both activities but there were fewer both) + observe same-sex vs. opposite-sex play

schools randomly assigned:

• high gender salience: line up by sex, boys/girls boards, teachers use gendered language

• low salience (control): no changes

post test: same measures repeated

debriefing program to reduce possible stereotyping effects

findings:

high gender salience:

• more gender stereotypes

• less oppostive-sex play

low salience: no significant change

GRAVE

G - low: not a free preschool, hard to generalise

R - it’s a field experiment so conditions can’t be controlled perfectly but standardised measures used

A - shows that making gender more noticeable can increase stereotyping and reduce out-group interaction

V - high ecological validity (done in a real preschool) but low internal validity (less control of extraneous variables)

E - possible undue harm by increasing stereotypes and reducing opposite-sex play

Steele and Aronson

aim: test whether stereotype threat lowers African Americans’ performance on a verbal ability test

procedure:

• 114 Stanford undergrads took an SAT-style verbal test

• IV: race of ppt and test description

conditions:

• threat: told the test diagnoses verbal ability

• non-threat: told it measures problem solving skills

findings:

• black ppts scored lower than white ppts in the threat condition

• black ppts scored the same as white ppts in the non-threat condition

GRAVE

G - low: ppts were Stanford undergrads (sample isn’t representative)

R - high: standardised test, clear instructions and independent samples design

A - useful for explaining achievement gaps and how test framing can affect performance

V - low: can’t really establish cause and effect

E - potential psychological stress

Kearins

aim: to compare spatial memory in desert indigenous Australian adolescents vs. white Australian adolescents, using natural vs artificial objects

procedure:

• 44 indigenous adolescents

• 44 white Australian adolescents

Look - cover - rebuild

• look at objects on a grid for 30 seconds

• objects get covered and mixed into a pile

• rebuild the layout but putting objects in their original spot

object sets:

• artificial different (man-made, easy to name)

• natural different (natural, familiar to desert kids)

• artificial same (similar bottles, hard to name)

• natural same (similar rocks, hard to name)

findings:

• desert indigenous group performed better on spatial memory

• desert living likely rewards spatial encoding and retrieval cues

GRAVE

G - low: single cultural comparison (hard to generalise)

R - culture can’t be manipulated so replications vary depending on community, schooling but task is standardised

A - shows that memory performance can differ across cultures

V - quasi experiment (findings are correlational not cause and effect)

E - high

Lueck and Wilson

aim: to identify which factors predict acculturative stress in a sample of asian immigrants and asian Americans

procedure:

• 2095 asian American ppts (1271 immigrants, others US born)

• researcher used semi-structured interviews

• interviews measured acculturative stress and factors like language proficiency, discrimination, social networks, family cohesion

findings:

• 70% showed acculturative stress

• low stress = bilingual language, good family cohesion and satisfaction with economic opportunities

• high stress = English-only preference, discriminations

GRAVE

G - high: ethnically diverse ppts (generalisable)

R - semi structured interviews can vary between interviewers

A - high: identifies likely predictors that can guide support programs

V - high: interviews allow clarification + follow ups (reduces misunderstandings)

E - consent and confidentiality