What Is Gonna Be On The Test

ERQ

  • Discuss (or Evaluate) one or more studies on the formation of stereotypes.

  • Discuss (or Evaluate) Social Identity Theory.

  • Discuss (or Evaluate) one or more studies of enculturation.

SAQ

  • explain social cognitive theory with reference to one study

  • explain one study of the effects of steretying on behaviour

  • explain one ethical consideration in one study of the individual and the group

Studies I Need To Know

Social Cognitive Theory: Bandura’s (1961)

  • Aim: The aim of Bandura's 1961 study was to determine if children would imitate aggressive behavior observed in an adult model and to explore how gender might influence the imitation of aggression.

  • Procedure: 36 children aged 3 to 6 years, with an equal split of 36 boys and 36 girls. Children were divided into three groups: Aggressive Model: A male or female model acted aggressively towards a Bobo doll (e.g., hitting, kicking). Passive Model: A male or female model demonstrated non-aggressive, passive behavior (e.g., playing calmly with the doll). Control Group: No model was shown to the children. Observation: After the exposure to the model, the children were placed in a room with a Bobo doll and observed to see if they would imitate the aggressive or passive behaviors.

  • Results: Children exposed to the aggressive model showed significantly more aggression towards the Bobo doll compared to those in the passive or control groups. Boys exhibited more aggression when they observed a male model, while girls showed more aggression when the model was female. Both physical and verbal aggression were more frequently imitated, with girls displaying more verbal aggression and boys displaying more physical aggression when the model was the same gender.

  • Conclusion: The study supports Social Cognitive Theory, demonstrating that children learn and imitate behavior from models, especially when the model shares similar characteristics (such as gender). It shows that aggression can be learned through observation, and gender differences in aggression are influenced by the model’s gender. Self-efficacy also played a role, as boys showed more aggression when observing a male model, suggesting that gender identification affects how aggression is learned and expressed.


Social Identity Theory: Tajefal et al. (1971) and Dobbs and Crano (2001)\

Tajefal et al. (1971)

  • Aim: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display in-group favouritism and inter-group discrimination.

  • Procedure: 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. 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: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.

  • Conclusion: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.

EVALUATION:

Strengths:

  • The study effectively established the bare minimum for group membership.

  • Clearly illustrated in group bias in the context of resource competition.

  • Starkly illustrated the occurrence of in-group bias as a result of very insignificant distinctions and minimal emotional involvement. 

Limitations:

  • The study was conducted on 14 -15 year old boys and therefore the results cannot be extrapolated or generalised to a broader population.

Ethical considerations:

  • The research was conducted on participants under the age of 18 and therefore their parents would have had to give their consent for their children's participation.

  • Deception was used to hide the true aim from participants.

Dobbs and Crano 2001

  • Aim: To investigate factors that affect minimal group paradigm-based discrimination.

  • Method: Used a minimal groups study and asked people to justify their in-group favouritism.

  • Results: Out-group decrease in discrimination was especially evident when the allocator was of majority status. Allocators of minority status tended to discriminate more when made accountable to the out-group.

Conclusion: The status of the group as a majority or minority group affects discrimination. Asking people to justify their in-group favouritism changed prejudice. In members of the minority group, in-group favouritism increased, whereas it decreased in the majority group. This is more complex than social identity theory would predict, so is difficult to explain.