Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
ASCH (1951)
Conformity IB11 |
Asch (1951) used lab experiments to investigate conformity to group norms. This original experiment showed the power of situational factors. He asked participants to judge the lengths or lines on a very easy/unambiguous task. The IV was bing alone or put in a group with stooges while being asked the questions. When participants were alone, almost everyone knew the correct answer, since it was obvious. Participants who are put in a group with stooges instructed to give the wrong answer in some trials tended to go along with the group and give the wrong answer to the same simple visual task, regardless of personality. 75% of the participants conformed to the group by giving the wrong answer, on at least one trial. (All in all the participants conformed on a third of the trials) However, 25% of the participants never conformed, which could possibly be explained by personality (=dispositional factors). This shows that people have a tendency to conform to group norms, to go along with a group even when they know the group is not right.
In replications of this original experiment he also investigated the influence of other situational factors manipulating them as the IV: such as group size, difficulty of task and having an ally. All of these (being in a group or alone, having an ally or not, the difficulty of the task) are situational factors. Explanation of Asch's results: theory or normative (They go along to fit in) and informational conformity (They go along because they think the group is right) |
|
|
Crutchfield (1954)
Conformity and dispositional factors IB11 |
Crutchfield used Asch-like experiments to investigate conformity without the physical presence of others (remember that the definition of conformity states that others don’t have to be present) and correlations (He correlated the results from the experiments with results from personality and intelligence tests) to investigate whether personality is a factor that influences conformity.
Participants were 90 air force officers, 50 in the experimental group and 40 in the control group. In the conformity experiments, five participants were tested simultaneously. They were seated side by side; however, they could not see each other since their desks had side wings. In front of each participant there were switches to be used to indicate their responses and rows of signal lamps that indicated the responses of the other four participants. Also in front of the participants there was a screen where the different test items were displayed. He did not use any confederates (participants were presented with fake responses assumed to be the responses of the other participants – cost efficient), which made this a more economical design. Test items included many different kinds of issues. Asch-like perceptual tasks (with comparisons of lines), factual questions, matters of opinions, logical tasks, and questions that had to do with personal preferences. Apart from the experiments in cubicles, he also examined how personality traits were related to different degrees of conformity by testing all participants for personality traits (This part of the study is a CORRELATION since he measured whether there was a correlation between results on experiments on conformity and the results on personality tests). This is done by firs giving the participants personality tests and registering their scores on different traits (ego strength, leadership ability, self control). They also did intelligence tests, where an IQ score was determined. Results showed 30% conformed in the Asch-like perception task (which confirmed Asch's results even when participants were alone i cubicles). When participants were to compare the area of a circle to the area of a star (circle was one third larger), 46% conformed and agreed to a false alternative. On a simple logical task of completion of a number series, 30% conformed to an obviously illogical answer. Among the control sample of men, not a single one expressed agreement with the statement “I doubt whether I would make a good leader,” whereas 37% of the men subjected to group pressure agreed to it. (This task does not lack mundane reality. This means that the task resembled a real life task than the line judgment task.) Results on personality showed that conformity varies between different individuals, which means that some individuals conform more than others. Since Crutchfield had measured personality traits in his participants, he could find what traits correlated with willingness to conform. People who don’t conform: -are more intelligent -have more ego-strength -have leadership ability -have mature social relations -absence of inferiority feelings - rigid and excessive self-control, authoritarian attitudes In conclusion, he confirmed Asch results and showed that people tend to conform to a large extent and even more so on more ecologically valid tasks than comparisons of lines. He also showed that some personality traits are more |
|
|
BOND AND SMITH (1996)
Conformity and culture IB11 |
Bond and Smith used a meta-analysis of 133 experiments in 17 countries on the Asch paradigm. (This means that they investigated and compared 133 studies on conformity. All of these studies had used the same type of task as Asch did. IV: alone or in a group
DV: conformity (operationalized as number of times agreeing with the majority when they are wrong) Results of these studies showed that higher conformity levels were found in collectivist cultures than individualistic cultures. The level of conformity ranged from 15 % in Belgian students (Doms, 1983) to 58 % among Indian teachers in Fiji (Chandra, 1973) . The Belgian students were technology (=a need to be right?) students from an individualist culture and teachers from Fiji are from a collectivist culture. This indicates that cultural norms play a role in conformity. |
|
|
LAU AND RUSSEL (1980)
Support for the SSB IB11 |
Lau and Russel (1980) conducted a content analysis of 107 articles from 8 daily newspapers during the autumn of 1977. The articles were about the wins and losses of different football teams and contained attributions, i.e. explanations for the wins and losses after football games, made by American coaches and players. The explanations were external (when the participant said something about the other team or the circumstances under which the game took place) or internal (if the player or coach said something about his own team).
Results showed that they tended to credit their wins to internal/dispositional factors (being in good shape, having put in hard work, natural talent of the team) and their failures to external/situational factors (injuries, weather, fouls committed by the other team). The conclusion drawn form this was that people tend to attribute their own failures to situational factors, and attribute their success to dispositional factors/personality. In this case the coaches and players tended to blame their failures on the circumstances under which the game took place and taking credit for their wins This study produced strong evidence for the self-serving bias. Possible explanation of why we tend to make this attribution error is that we need to protect our self-esteem. Self-esteem is improved if we are responsible for our own success. If we explain failure with situation, our self-esteem is protected. It may also show that people are motivated to appear in a favorable light to other people (showing the principle of the socio-cultural level that people have a need to belong). Also, since people expect to succeed based on their own abilities, unexpected/unintended failure is perceived as due to external factors. This means that if we try hard and still fail, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that something outside/the situation is responsible for our failure. |
|
|
Kashima and Triandis (1986)
On culture and the self-serving bias (modesty bias) IB11 |
Kashima and Triandis (1986) showed that there are cultural differences in the self-serving bias. They showed slides from unfamiliar countries to American and Japanese students and asked them to remember details (memory test). When the students were asked to explain their performance (=to attrIbute causes to their performance on the memory test, where performance is the behavior they were asked to explain), the Americans explained their own success with internal factors, such as ability, and failure with external factors. So the Americans showed the SSB, but the Japanese tended to explain their failure with dispositional factors, such as lack of ability. This is called the modesty bias. The modesty bias is a cultural variation of the SSB. A possible explanation for the modesty bias in collectivist cultures could be a cultural norm in Chinese societies to maintain harmonious personal relationships. A person who ”takes the blame” for failures could expect to be better liked.
|
|
|
SUEDFELD (2003)
Support for the FAE IB11 |
Suedfeld (2003) showed that Holocaust survivors made more situational attributions when explaining the possible factors in survival during the Holocaust than age-matched Jews who had not personally experienced the Nazi persecution (control group). 91% of the survivors made situational attributions (e.g. luck and help from others) compared to 51 % in the control group. Only 34 % of the survivors made dispositional attributions (e.g. psychological strengths and determination) compared to 71 % in the control group.
This indicates that personal experiences during the Holocaust influenced survivors’ attributions because they had witnessed that it was actually often luck or help from others that determined who survived and who didn’t. The survivors had a clear picture of the power of the situation during the Holocaust. They had the information. The non-survivors, on the other hand, did not have all the information and tended to make the fundamental attribution error and overestimate the role of dispositional factors for survival. THis is why we make the FAE. We don’t have enough information about situational factors, and therefore think the behavior (survival in this case) has to be caused by dispositional factors. Possible explanation: Some researchers claim that we make this error because we tend to think of ourselves as adaptable, flexible and ever-changing human begins. We don’t like to think of ourselves as a “type” of person. However, when we look at others, we don’t have enough information about them to make a balanced decision, so we attribute behavior to disposition. We are often not aware of the details of their situations. We also tend to think that we would have acted differently under different circumstances. Cross-cultural research shows that placing the blame on the individual is common practice in western culture. People are held responsible for their actions, which is why there could be cultural differences. |
|
|
TAJFEL ET AL (1972)
Evidence for SIT |
Tajfel et al. (1979) demonstrated in three experiments that a “minimal group” (which means a meaningless group/a group where the members have very little in common) is all that is necessary for individuals to start discriminating against members of an out-group. Bristol school boys were divided into random groups and asked to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys (to boys from their own or the other group) in the experiment. Results showed that they gave more money to members of their own group (the so called in-group) than the members of the other group (called the out-group). In the second experiment they even tried to maximize the difference, sometimes at their own group's expense and in the third experiment they even knew that the groups were randomly chosen.
(Group division was based on 1. estimating no of dots, 2. preference for painter, 3. toss of a coin (random) Possible explanation: We discriminate out-groups to enhance our own self-esteem. See Lemyre and Smith. |
|
|
Lemyre and Smith (1985)
Discrimination enhances self-esteem (SIT) |
Lemyre & Smith, 1985 According to SIT, we discriminate against other groups in order to boost our own self-esteem. This lab experiment shows that people do gain self-esteem from discriminating against those from another group. The IV was whether they go to discriminate or not and the DV was level of self-esteem after. Participants were categorized into groups
- One group of participants got the opportunity to discriminate against the out-group and one was not. - Self-esteem was measured afterwards. Results showed that the participants who had the opportunity to discriminate displayed higher self-esteem. From this one can conclude that when we have an opportunity to discriminate against an out-group, our self-esteem is increased. Explanation: This supports THE ENHANCED ESTEEM HYPOTHESIS according to which we discriminate to boost our self-esteem. However, other research has shown that this is very short-lasting and might not be enough of an explanation. |
|
|
Wetherall (1982)
|
Wetherall, 1982 2 shows cultural differences in out-group discrimination. In cultures where cooperation is the norm, people don’t discriminate as much against out-groups. Participants were white and Polynesian children in New Zealand. Results showed that the Polynesians where much more generous towards the out-group. This shows that out-group conflict isn’t inevitable. In cultures where cooperation is the norm (collectivist cultures, such as among Polynesians in New Zealand), people don’t discriminate as much against out-groups.
|
|
|
Evaluate SIT (social identity theory)
|
(+) It can explain the minimal group effect (which means that we start discriminating against out-group members even when we have very little in common with members of the in-group. Just dividing people into groups makes them discriminate). Use Tajfel to illustrate. The participants are put into minimal groups/meaningless groups and allocate more points to their own group.
(+) There is considerable support (See studies above and. There are more than two dozen independent minimal group experiments in several different countries, using a wide range of experimental participants of both sexes (from young children to adults), essentially the same result has been found: the mere act of allocating people into arbitrary social categories is sufficient to elicit biased judgments and discriminatory behaviors. (-) Much of the support comes from minimal group experiments, which have been criticized because of artificiality and meaninglessness. On the other hand, if people discriminate against meaningless out-groups, they are probably even more likely to discriminate against out-groups in real life, that are usually not meaningless. However, there are other types of studies, such as Castelli, DeAmicis, & Sherman, 2007 (+) Since experiments are used, it is possible to draw conclusions about causes of discrimination. Being put in a minimal group (IV) causes people to discriminate (DV). (-) It presents racism (and other forms of prejudice) as natural, helping to justify it. SIT implies that intergroup hostility is natural and built into our thought-processes, as a consequence of categorization. It is natural for people to be prejudiced and discriminate against others when they belong to a group. (-) It tends to be reductionist (does not address the environment that interacts with the ”self”. Cultural expectations, rewards as motivators, and societal constraints such as poverty may play more of a role in behavior than one’s own sense of in-group identity. (+) The evidence shows only a positive in-group bias and not derogatory attitudes or behaviors towards the out-group. Prejudice according to this theory is liking ”us” more than disliking ”them”. (-) The theory describes but does not always predict behavior. This means that it is a theory that explains how we should behave against out-group members when we belong to an in-group, but this type of behavior does not always happen. (-) The theory tends to be reductionist (It does not address the environment that interacts with the ”self”. Cultural expectations, rewards as motivators, and societal constraints such as poverty may play more of a role in behavior than one’s own sense of in-group identity. (-) There are factors that influence how likely negative feelings towards out-group members are to occur. Negative feelings towards out-group members or prejudice, are more likely to occur when individuals draw a large sense of identity from their group membership, this identity is threatened, and there is a conflict between the in group and the out-group. Negative feelings about those in-group members who had positive interactions with out-group members were decreased when an external and powerful figure, such as a teacher was present to create contact between the in-group and the out-group. Respected external figures that do not attempt to control all interactions may help foster more positive inter-group contact (-,+) One ethical limitation of Tajfels original studies to support SIT, is the use of children in research. They boys in this study were 14 and 15 years old. Also, deception was used since the boys were not told the true aim of the experiment. They were deceived into thinking that they were divided into groups based on estimation and the preference of a painter, but they were actually randomly divided in experiment 1 and 2. However, the study involved minimal deception and no real harm to the participants, so the study could be described as ethical. (+) Dispositional factors seem to influence. For example, research has shown that competitive individuals (Platow et al. 1990). They showed greater in-group favoritism than cooperative individuals. |
|
|
SPENCER (1977)
On one effect of stereotypes (stereotype threat) IB11 |
Spencer (1977) used an experiment and investigated stereotype threat by comparing women’s and men’s performance on difficult math tests. The assumption was that women strong in maths would underperform to equally strong men because of the existing stereotype that men are better at math.
IV: gender since men and women were compared; type of test since they took a difficult math test, and easy math test and a literature test DV: performance on the tests Participants were men and women equally strong in maths. A difficult mathematics test, an easy math test and a literature test was given to the students. Results showed that women underperformed compared with equally qualified men on the difficult math test. The men and women performed equally well on the easy math test and on the literature test. (The point is that there was no difference in the men’s and women’s math ability, but also that these were women who were strong in maths, which usually means that being good at it/performing well is important to their self-image.) From this one can conclude that people tend to underperform when there is a stereotype threat (when others have stereotypes about a group they belong to), probably because of an interfering pressure in the situation. The EXPLANATION is that SPOTLIGHT ANXIETY limits working memory capacity which is needed to perform as well as possible. Full capacity of working memory is not needed to perform well on the easy math test for someone who is good at math. |
|
|
BUCKHOUT (1974)
On one effect of stereotypes (distorted memory of a drawing) IB11 |
Buckhout (1974) showed that memory of a drawing can be distorted in white men, based on a stereotypic view of blacks as being more violent than whites. He gave participants a series of drawings in which some stereotypical pattern was violated. One drawing (based on Allport & Postman’s 1947 experiment) showed a casually dressed white man threatening a well-dressed black man on a subway train, with the white man holding a razor. They got to see the drawing very briefly.
Results showed that approximately half the (white) participants ’remembered’ seeing a black man holding a razor. This shows that if someone has stereotypes of a group, such as black people being more violent than white people, his memory of a scene from a drawing can be distorted by that stereotype. The effects of having stereotypes can be distortions in memory. Rememeber that Buckhout just used Allport and Postmans drawing and let the participants look at it once briefly. Allport and Postman used the drawing in serial reproduction (a rumor study). |
|
|
THEORY OF ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS (Theory explaining stereotypes)
|
Illusory correlation = People see a relationship between two variables (such as membership of a social group and behaviors) even when there is none. It means that observers conclude that two factors are associated despite the lack of any real association between them.
This is often the case with negative stereotypes of minority groups. For example between being black and being violent or being a woman and being bad at maths. Once illusory correlations are made people tend to seek out or remember information that supports this relationship (=confirmation bias). Makes stereotypical thinking resistant to change |
|
|
HAMILTON AND GIFFORD (1976)
Study on formation of stereotypes. Confirms theory of illusory correlations |
Hamilton & Gifford (1976) showed that participants form illusory correlations between group membership and type of behavior (positive or negative) just based on distinctiveness. They attributed more negative behaviors (since they are distinctive) to the minority group, which can explain how negative stereotypes of minority groups are formed.
Aim To investigate illusory correlation of group size and negative behaviour. Method Experiment - Researchers asked participants to read descriptions about two made-up groups (Group A) and (Group B). They were made-up because the researchers wanted to avoid any groups that the participants might have stereotypes about already. - Descriptions were based on a number of positive and negative behaviours. - Group A (majority group) had twice as many members than B and they performed 18 positive and 8 negative behaviours. - Group B (minority) – performed 9 positive and 4 negative behaviours. This means that the ratio of positive and negative behaviors was the same. - Participants were as sked to attribute behaviours to groups. Results: - Although there was no real correlation between group membership and the types of behaviours exhibited by the groups, in that the proportion of negative and positive was the same for both groups, the participants did seem to form an illusory correlation between group membership and type of behavior (positive or negative). - More of the undesirable behaviours were attributed to the minority Group B, than the majority of Group A. Conclusion: The findings are based on the idea that distinctive information draws attention. Group B members and negative behaviours are both numerically fewer and therefore more distinct than Group A members and negative behaviour, therefore, stands out more than the combination of Group A members performing such behaviours causing illusory correlation. This study shows evidence for illusory correlation, as the participants had formed an illusionary correlation between the size of the group and type of behavior and it could be used to explain how stereotypes about negative behaviors of minorities are formed. |
|
|
MANSON ET AL. (1985)
Emic study IB11 |
Manson et al. (1985) used interviews with native Americans (Indians) - meaning that the researchers used people from that culture - to develop an instrument to use to diagnose depression. It is called the American Indian Depression Scale. From the interviews, the researchers derived the following five (translated) Hopi illness categories relevant to depression (which are obviously different from how westerners express depression):
worry sickness unhappiness heartbroken drunken-like craziness disappointment Most Hopi participants said they could not identify a Hopi word that was equivalent to the term depression. But they were all familiar with all five of the Hopi illness categories. Some of the characteristics identified by Manson et al. (e.g. unhappiness) were similar to Western ways of looking at depression. Others were entirely different. The category of heartbroken, for example, included the following symptoms: weight loss, disrupted sleep, fatigue, psychomotor retardation and agitation, loss of libido, a sense of sinfulness, shame, not being likable, and trouble thinking clearly. As a pattern, this set of symptoms does not form part of any Western diagnostic scheme. This emic study shows how important it is to conduct emic research. It shows that Native Americans have a different view of depression and this is important since it could be problematic to try to diagnose depression using Western manuals. |
|
|
BANDURA (1961)
Evidence for SLT IB11 |
Bandura (1961) performed a lab experiment to investigate if children who are passive witnesses to an aggressive adult, would imitate this aggressive behavior when given the opportunity. Also, to investigate whether boys would imitate the behavior to a greater extent and to see if the children would imitate the same sex model to a greater extent. IVs were 1. level of aggression of model (aggressive or not aggressive towards a Bobo doll 2. gender of the model (man or woman). 3gender of the child (girl or boy) since they were compared. The DV was aggression of the child (after having watched an aggressive model)
Procedure: 1) The children (72 3-6-year-olds from a university nursery) were individually exposed to adult models, which behaved in either aggressive or non-aggressive ways (IV) towards an inflated plastic Bobo doll. The control group was not exposed to a model. 2) The children were then tested in a new situation (in another room alone with the same toys) without the model present to determine to what extent they would imitate the acts of aggression (DV) they had observed in the adult. Results: 1) The children exposed to aggressive models acted more aggressively than children in the control group. 2) Children exposed to a non-aggressive model were less aggressive than the control group. 3) Boys tended to display more aggression than girls. 4) The children tended to imitate the same sex model to a greater extent. Conclusion: Children learn social behavior such as aggression by imitating the behavior of others. Explanation: According to SLT the following factors must be present for learning to occur. If they ask you to “explain SLT”, you need to talk about why behaviors are learned. - attention (The observer must first pay attention to the model) - retention (The observer must be able to remember the behavior that has been observed) - motor reproduction (The observer has to be able to replicate the action) - motivation (The observer must want to demonstrate what they have learned. The necessity of this factor is demonstrated in Bandura’s second study below and in Charlton et al.) The factors that influence motivation to imitate and learn a behavior are: - consistency. If the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situations – for example, always being brave-then the observer will be more likely to imitate than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation. - identification with the model There is a tendency to imitate models that are like ourselves-for example, in terms of age and gender. Evidence from Bandura's study. - rewards/punishment (Bandura showed that people can learnfrom observing what happens to others; they don’t have to experience the consequences themselves. Use Bandura's second study as evidence. The model was reinforced, not the child. - liking the model. Warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models. A study by Yarrow et al. (1970) showed that children learn altruistic behavior (helping others for no personal gain) better from people with whom they have already developed a friendly relationship than from people they do not know. |
|
|
Charlton et al. (2002)
Evidence of SLT (could be used instead of Bandura) |
Charlton et al. (2002) used a quasi experiment (since the IV - violent TV or no violent TV - was not manipulated by the researcher). This was not manipulated by the researchers but occurred naturally. They investigatee whether children aged 3-8 from two primary schools in St. Helena would exhibit more aggressive behavior after the introduction of television to the island in 1995.
The DV was the aggression level of the children before compared to after introduction of TV (This was a repeated measures design). Cameras were set up on playgrounds of the schools and interviews were conducted with children, teachers, parents). Results showed that there was no increase in aggressive or antisocial behavior. This was also the case after five years. From this study, high in ecological validity, one can conclude that watching violent TV does not seem to affect aggression levels in children. Explanation of results: - The study shows that people must be motivated to imitate behavior. It is not enough to have observed it in a model. - The results might be affected by social and cultural factors in what behaviors are accepted in a society. Parents and teachers said that antisocial behavior was ot accepted on the island and that there was a high degree of social control in the community. It shows that people may learn aggressive behavior but they may not exhibit it for several reasons. (This is confirmed in Banduras second experiment, where he showed that children do learn aggression by watching but they don’t necessarily show/exhibit that behavior.) - The study does not question SLT (since motivation is a factor that needs to be present in order for a behavior to be imitated). It just questions the results of the first study conducted by Bandura (1961). (+) High ecological validity, since the study investigated a real-life event. (-) Since it is a natural experiment with no manipulation of an IV, we cannot draw conclusions about causation. |
|
|
MORIARTY (1975)
Evidence for foot-in-the-door technique |
Moriarty (1975) showed evidence of the foot-in-the-door-technique by showing that we can use people's desire to be CONSISTENT and make them COMMIT to something SMALL FIRST in order to later commit to something larger
The aim was to investigate whether onlookers would risk personal harm (large request) to stop a crime if they are first asked to watch someone’s belongings at a beach (small request). He used a field experiment (a staged theft on the beach). The IV was whether the stooge asked the participant to watch his things or not (small request). The DV was whether the participant ran after and try to stop a thief from stealing the belongings. This was an independent samples design. Participants were 40 individuals on a beach (20 in the experimental condition and 20 in the control condition) - A stooge put a beach blanket down five feet from the blanket of a randomly chosen individual – the participant. - After several minutes of relaxing on the blanket and listening to music from a portable radio, the stooge would stand up and leave the blanket to stroll down the beach. - Soon after a researcher, pretending to be a thief, approaches, grabs the radio, and tries to hurry away with it. - The procedure was repeated 20 times where the stooge just left the blanket and 20 times where the stooge asked the participant to ”watch the things”. Results showed when they had not been asked to watch the radio (in the control condition), only 4/20 (20%) put themselves in danger by challenging the thief. - In the experimental condition, where the stooge asked the participant to watch the things, 19/20 (95%) ran after and stopped the thief, demanding an explanation, often restraining the thief physically or snatching the radio away. Conclusion: We tend to comply with large demands of other people if we are asked something small first. Due to the desire to be consistent with the agreement to watch the things (which was a small request), the participants felt that they wanted to be consistent with this first decision and put themselves in danger (which is the large request) when running after the thief. Explanations: Consistency is usually valued and adaptive (a desirable personality trait). The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds don’t match is seen as confused, two-faced and even mentally ill. A high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength. It is highly valued in our culture. Usually we are better off because of it but we fall into the habit of being consistent even in situations where it is not the sensible way to be. It is a form of automatic responding that offers a shortcut through the complexities of modern life. We don’t have to think hard about an issue once we have made up our mind. It is a way to save mental effort. (+) Cause and effect (using the technique makes more people comply) (+) High ecological validity (natural environment of the participants, no demand characteristics) (-) All ethical guidelines were not followed. No informed consent, deception, participants were exposed to possible physical harm since the researchers could not know exactly how the participants would stop the thief/stooge. Each of these needs to be explained. (-) Since an independent samples design was used and since the sample was quite small, participant variables might have affected the results, meaning that since the participants in the conditions were different people, their personality characteristics could have affected their willingness to comply, as opposed to the IV. |
|
|
Dickerson et al. (1992)
Evidence for the foot-in-the-door compliance technique |
Dickerson et al. (1992) showed that students comply with a large request such as taking shorter showers to a greater extent when they are asked a smaller request first (to sign a poster).
Aim: to investigate if university students could be made to save water in the dormitory showers Method: field experiment IV: whether participants had signed a poster or not and whether they had been made to think about their water usage through the survey. DV: saving water (operationalized as measuring the time the students spent taking showers) So, the actual, large request here is saving water/taking shorter showers and the small request is signing the poster. Participants: University students (US?) Procedure: - Asked students to sign a poster that said ”Take shorter showers. If we can do it so can you - Asked them to take a survey designed to make them think about their own water wastage. - Shower times were monitored. Results: Students who had signed the poster and then been forced to think about their own water usage took shorter showers. Students who had not been asked to sign the poster did not take shorter showers. Conclusion: This also shows evidence of the FIDT since students who were first asked a small favor (to sing a poster to take shorter showers) actually took shorter showers (large request). Explanations: CONSISTENCY is usually valued and adaptive (a desirable personality trait). The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds don’t match is seen as confused, two-faced and even mentally ill. A high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength. It is highly valued in our culture. Usually we are better off because of it but we fall into the habit of being consistent even in situations where it is not the sensible way to be. It is a form of automatic responding that offers a shortcut through the complexities of modern life. We don’t have to think hard about an issue once we have made up our mind. It is a way to save mental effort. (+) Cause and effect (asking the small favor first makes more people comply with the large one) (+) High ecological validity (+) No demand characteristics (-) Deception (field experiment) (-) No informed consent (field experiment) (-) Biased sample so limited generalization to other populations (university students are not representative of the general population) |
|
|
CIALDINI ET AL. (1975)
Evidence for the door-in-the-face compliance technique |
Cialdini et al. (1975) showed that when students are first asked a very large request that they will most likely turn down, they are more likely to agree to a smaller request.
Aim: to investigate the door-in-the-face compliance technique. They investigated how willing students are to help out to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo Small request=chaperone to the zoo (which is the actual request that they want students to comply with in this case) Large request= to sign up for two years of non-paid work (which is a question they asked first and that they knew most would not agree to) Method: field experiment IV: Whether the students were asked the too large favor (work for two years) before the actual request (chaperone delinquents to the zoo). DV: Whether the students agreed to the small request (to chaperone delinquents to the zoo) Procedure: - The researchers posed as representatives of the ”County Youth Counseling Program” - Stopped university students on campus - Asked control group if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo (the small request). The experimental group was first asked a large favor that they would probably refuse: if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours per week as counsellors for a minimum of two years and then they were asked the same as the first ones - So, in the experimental group, the DIFT was used since they were first asked a too large favor (work for two years), and then the small favor that they actually wanted them to agree to (chaperone kinds to the zoo). This tactic was not used in the control condition. They were only asked to chaperone. Results (measured as how many agreed to chaperone to the zoo) - In the control condition, only 17 % agreed to chaperone the kids to the zoo when only asked this question (the small request). - In the experimental condition, when the technique was used and they were first asked to work for two years (the large request) 50% agreed to chaperone to the zoo (the small request) Explanation: The principle or factor that makes this work is the NORM OF RECIPROCITY. When we turn someone down, we have a feeling that we owe them something, and therefore accept the second request. (+) An experiment was used, which means that we can conclude that asking a large favor first causes people to agree to a smaller request to a greater extent. Extraneous variables were controlled in the sense that standardized procedure was used (The students were approached the same way, told the same things, they all got the same survey, etc.) (+) This field experiment has high ecological validity since it was conducted in the natural environment of the students. They were stopped on campus and they were not aware of the fact that they were part of a study. (-) One ethical limitation of this experiment is deception, which means that the participants did not know they were a part of a study. This is a problem because participants in a study need to be informed they are in a study and offered to sign consent and they need to be aware of the true aim of a study. However, this was done to avoid demand characteristics. Since no psychological or physical harm was done, it could be argued that the ends justify the means (meaning that the knowledge gained about the FIDT, outweighs the problems). |
|
|
HOFSTEDE (1973)
Evidence for cultural dimensions Evidence for cultural norms Etic study (cultures are compared, using a Western approach) IB11 |
Hofstede (1973) used a survey to investigate norms and values and attitudes in the workplace (i.e. to assess what different cultures stress)
Participants: 100,000 employees in a large international company (IBM) with sites in more than 40 countries. Results: He noticed trends (differences between cultures) that he called ”dimensions”. Hofstede’s research shows that there are cultural differences on the dimensions, which means that each culture has a certain score (they score high or low or in the middle) on each dimension Cultures were ranked in terms of how strongly they embraced the values of individualism or masculinity. North American and Western European nations tend to be relatively individualistic, whereas more collectivism was found in Asian, African, and Latin American countries. Japan was found to be the world's most masculine society, with a rating of 95. Sweden was the most feminine with a rating of 5. |
|
|
Hofstede and Bond (1988)
|
Hofstede and Bond (1988)
A survey in Eastern and Western cultures to check the validity of the cultural dimensions since most previous questionnaires had questions devised by Westerners (e.g. Hofstede's IBM surveys), which might have reflected only Western values. Hofstede and Bond asked Chinese social scientists in Hong Kong and Taiwan to define some Chinese cultural values. From these a questionnaire was made up in Chinese and then translated into English and other languages - the other way round from the usual practice. Similar results were found, i.e. the results confirmed the differences between cultures on the different cultural dimensions |
|
|
Evaluate Hofstede (1983)
|
(+) Hofstede’s research spurred a lot of research within this area. Psychology used to be known for not investigating cultural differences and most research prior to these kinds of studies were ethnocentric, using participants from Western cultures and assuming that behaviors are the same across cultures (such as conformity and flashbulb memories. See cultural considerations in Asch’s research).
(+) Using a survey is a quick and convenient way to collect a large amount of data from a large number of participants. (-) However, using content analysis may be subjective. (+) A large, diverse, international sample was used. This is a large international study, which was quite rare in psychological research at the time. (-) However, data were not available for the Communist block or for much of Africa, which means that the results cannot be generalized beyond the cultures used. Also, The results can only be generalized to IBM employees, since they might have characteristics not present in the rest of the population. (+) Hofstede's research gives us insights into other cultures so that we can be more effective when interacting with people in other countries. If understood and applied properly, this information should reduce your level of frustration, anxiety, and concern and we are able to rely less on prejudice and stereotypes. (-) However, according to Hofstede, culture should not be used as an explanation of behavior but descriptions of cultural factors can be used to understand how people have survived in their environment, how they have organized life in social groups, and what beliefs, attitudes, and norms influence behavior in the social and cultural groups. It is important to remember that the differences within a culture are often greater than the differences between cultures. (+) There are studies that support the results of Hofstede’s research (For example research on flashbulb memories and conformity, which indicates that cultural differences on a large number of behaviors can be explained using cultural dimensions. See these handouts or see below where this is explained.). (-) One limitation of Hofstede’s IBM survey was that the questionnaire was devised/created by Westerners, which is an etic approach (meaning that it shows a Western view, it is quite ethnocentric). Hofstede and Bond (see box below) therefore wanted an Asian view and asked Chinese social scientists in Hong Kong and Taiwan to define some Chinese values and then made a questionnaire in Chinese that was translated into English and other languages. Participants were students and the results matched the ones from Hofstede’s original research. (+) One strength of this research is that it can be applied in real life. For example, for those who work in international business, it is sometimes amazing how different people in other cultures behave. We tend to have a human instinct that 'deep inside' all people are the same - but they are not. Therefore, if we go into another country and make decisions based on how we operate in our own home country - the chances are we'll make some very bad decisions. |
