 Principle 1: human beings are social animals w/ basic need to belong: motivated to have important relationships.
o Baumeister and Leary: belongingness theory-motivated to form/maintain interpersonal relationships
and human culture to some extent adapted to satisfy psychological need to live together.
o Howarth: focus group interview adolescent girls in Brixton to show self evaluation. Positive view of being
from brixton, contrasted w/ view of ppl outside. Creating ‘social identity’ based on group belonging.
 Principle 2: culture influences human behavior=humans create/shape/influenced by culture. Cultural norms=
provide general prescriptions of behavior that are expected in given culture/society.
o Berry: conformity in relation to culture, modified Asch. Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for
survival) conform more bc need to work together, Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing)
independent bc must hunt/fish on their own, low conformity.
 Principle 3: humans have social self which reflect their group memberships. Group membership=social identities
(in groups) comparison with others (out groups). Bias on info processing (stereotyping) and discrimination.
o Tajfel and Turner: social identity theory- group based social identities based in categorization (in groups/
out groups), in group favoritism is common, out group negative bias.
 Tajfel: minimal group paradigm: boys in two groups (random, told based on dot estimation/
painting preference), award points, awarded to members of own group (ingroup favoritism).
Social identity can be established in a task of minimal importance.
 Heider: attribution theory-based on assumption that ppl are naïve scientists who try to explain behavioral
observations. Distinction of internal/extern. cause of behavior. Attribution theory based on assumption that ppl:
o Look for causes/reasons bc believe that there are motives. Intuitive psychologists who construct own
casual theories of human behavior bc want to understand/predict/control environment.
 Why attribution?: pervasive need for casual explanations to make world more predictable, most culture already
have these (myths + religions). Automatic tendency to see motives/disposition can override even where motive/
disposition doesn’t really apply (eg. Belief in fate, witchcraft)
o What is the cause of observed behavior? 1) something within person (personality, internal factors) –
Dispositional attribution (intelligence, personality, attitude) 2) outside person(situation, external factors)
– situational attribution (group pressure, social norms, weather, luck).
 Empirical research: Simmel-moving geometric figures, participants described like shapes intended to act. EvansPitchard=azande ppl of cent.Africa believed fate/witchcraft killed people when granary door collapsed bc
 Ross: The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE): overestimation of personality (dispositional), underestimate env.
Factors (make life predictable, ppl are understandable/easy to deal with.. Fiske: people rely too much on
personality, underestimate situation. Gilbert: western societies believe people get what they deserve.
o Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz FAE: allocated social roles + people’s judgement: 18 student pairs,
introductory class (Stanford uni), simulated quiz game w/ roles (contestant/questioner/24 observers),
questioner asks 10 questions, 30 secs, then after rate knowledge of contestants/questioners. Rated
knowledge of questioners superior bc related it to personality rather than situation gave advantage. Perfect
experimental set up, everyone knew quests made up questions. Participants uni students might be
sampling bias difficult to generalize, also eco validity.
o Suedfeld: Empirical: holocaust survivor attributions, quests to survivors/age matched jewish participants
not experienced in nazi persecution (control). holocaust survivors (91% attributed situational, 51% control).
(34% dispositional, 71% control) ppl who actually involved know it’s luck/power of situation.
o Cultural bias in FAE: determinant in attribution style. Collectivist emphasis on primary relationships (family,
social role, cultural activities), individualistic culture emphasis on individual(dispositional).
 Norenzayan et al: Koreans Americans, given personality attributed to dispositional, when situational
given Koreans included this info more than Americans. Universal features in FAE.
Strengths of FAE

Limitations of FAE

Understanding ethnocentrism. media). conformity to IG norms. and Wan: modesty bias in collectivist culture. jews. traits). Artificiality. about negative traits. Can’t fully explain how IG favoritism leads to violent behavior towards outgroups/social constraints such as bigger role in behavior than social identity. Children who worked with friend + failed=less SSB. Robust. over/underestimator. injury). American=success to internal. still demonstrated an ingroup bias. Positive view of being from brixton. categorization. Creating ‘social identity’ based on group belonging. failures to situational. failure to external. may have interpreted as competitive game. math problems pair non friend/friend. o Strive to maintain positive self concept/social identity.  Kashima + Triandis: slides of unfamiliar countries to American/Japanese students. Self-effacing attributions maybe less liked. awarded to members of own group (ingroup favoritism). exaggerate amount of control they have (miller and Ross). psych lab. failure to situational (rain. Posey and Smith: SSB exp with children. Can also occur when ppl have limited info. Can’t explain why cultures emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias) 4. positive towards ingroup. non friend=more SSB. Ppl expect to succeed w/own effort. less uniformity esp. o Could we self-protection (self-esteem). Pos. cultural variation of SSB  Bond. demand characteristics. IG favoritism. o Empirical research: Lau and Russel: American football coaches/players=success to disposition. negroes).Theory promoted understanding/explanation of common errors/what happens in world. Student openly make situational attributions when knowing going to fail (eg. gave friend credit when success.4 EVALUATE SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY  Tajfel and Turner: Social Identity Theory (SIT)=part of one’s self concept based on knowledge of membership in social groups in combination with value/emotional significance attached to membership. Japanese.5 EXPLAIN THE FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES AND THEIR EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR  How do stereotypes form? SC learning. Negative about japan (due to negative press/pearl harbor.  Theory culturally biased. o Cultural considerations in SSB: may be natural part of enculturation/socialization. large agreement(especially on neg. contrasted w/ view of ppl outside. award money points. supported by empirical research. Theoretical framework for analysis of intergroup relations. like cultural norm in Chinese societies to keep good relationships. too much focus individualism. Strengths of SIT Assumes no need for intergroup conflict for discrimination. supported. Self-handicapping=eg. schema processing o Katz and Braley 1933: 100 male students (Princeton uni) 5 traits from 84 to characterize ethnic groups (americans.  Categorization (shared characteristics) – ingroups (favoritism) or – outgroup (discrimination) o Tajfel: Experiment in intergroup discrimination-the minimal group paradigm: 64 boys(14-15 UK). research done in labs with student sample (eco valid. Traditional social stereotypes=cultural basis  Gilbert 1951: replicated. 4. Social identity can be established in a task of minimal importance. told based on dot estimation. Leung. 2nd tried to max diffs. in two groups (random. Explains mechanisism of establishing + distinctiveness to ingroup by max diffs. No sleep). Stereotypes are learned(like cultural products. generalization) Self Serving Bias (self-enhancing strategy): people take credit for success (dispositional). supports stereotypes as cultural products). 2nd on painting preference). Strengths Can explain why some explain failures by situational (mostly individualistic cultures) Limitations Culturally biased theory. distinctiveness of ingroup. participants expressed frustration about stereotyping=social change? . stereotyping Limitations of SIT Artificiality in minimal group research. Comparisons between in/outgroups on valued dimensions to maintain/defend positive ingroup distinctiveness (social comparison)  Social comparison=if has positive outcome=need for positive social id satisfied=vice versa. o Howarth: focus group interview adolescent girls in Brixton to show self evaluation. so different then real life. Japanese=failure with lack of ability=modesty bias.  Intergroup discrimination to uphold positive social identity within group.

emphasize similarities/exaggerate differences between groups. o Regan: favor=more likely to help person? Participant+confederate asked to rate paintings. boys more aggressive than girls.  Four important factors in social (observational) learning: attention-retention-reproduction-motivation o Bandura and Ross. high degree of social control=even if aggressiveness is learned. templates to help interpret social world What is the effect of stereotypes on behavior? o People grouped into in/out groups. When told verbal AAs did poorer than EAs. Humans actively process info based on few salient details to form overall impression. play room w/toys + bobo doll. Ppl pay attention to stereotype consistent info. o Devine: shoes distinguish between knowledge of stereotype/accepting it. 1)sig. Lab. further groups: male/female. 4. o Darley and Gross: Showed participants video of girl playing in poor/rich environment then taking test (intelligence). o Evaluation: real life event. o Discussion: antisocial behavior not accepted on island. Re-emergence of soial stereotyping but more favorable images. Experimental investigation on learning aggression from a model: imitate aggression from adult (more female/male?).o   Karlins et al 1969: replicated. MAKING REFERENCE TO TWO RELEVANT STUDIES  Bandura: Social learning theory (SLT)=people learn behaviors/attitudes/emotional reactions from observing effects on others (vicarious reinforcement) stored in memory+serves as guide. experimental brought back cola. 36 boys 36 girls (Stanford uni nursery school. tv aggression matched UK tv. More likely to imitate same-sex model.  Charlton et al: observation of introduction of television in a remote community (st. imitated but also other. mean 4. Out group stereotypes central to group identity. young children (ethical consid).  Evaluation: low eco valid. Negative stereotypes may be internalized by stereotyped groups. Stereotype threat could affect behavior in any stereotyped group if members themselves believe in stereotype. Social/cultural factors play role in defining acceptable behaviors. Exp condition bought more (liking doesn’t effect). 4. Artificiality + sample bias issues=limit generalization. disregard inconsistent (confirmation bias). No increase in aggressive/antisocial behavior. observed 20 mins via one way mirror.  Foot in the door technique: Big request followed by small: .6 EXPLAIN SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY. Matching). interviews with teachers/parents/older children.4 yrs) 3 groups (aggress. Said that rich girl would do better. may not be exhibited. Helena) affect on aggression. Artificial aggression (demand character?). when told ‘task used to test how certain problems generally solved’ scored just as well. stronger object but greater agreement on stereotypes. o Steele and Aronson: African /European American. Princeton trilogy doesn’t consider Lipmann: stereotypes=simplified mental images. more physically/verbally aggressive. 1)model aggressive-bobo doll 2)model assemble 3)control. verbal. then asked confed to buy raffle tickets. difficult multiple choice. high eco valid. Observed 3-8 yrs via cameras on playgrounds on primary schools. Confirm that people must have motivation to imitate behavior. Evaluation: lab experiment w/high control=recovering/returning favor=cause/effect.7 COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES  The norm (or rule) of reciprocity: Cialdini=we treat people the way they treat us. Doesn’t question SLT but results of Bandura and Ross.

also culture. beliefs and attitude. 1 confed=right answer.  Cultural Norms=rules that specific group uses for stating what is seen as in/appropriate behavior. ‘software’ of mind. collectivist(Japan. Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for survival) conform more bc need to work together. universal conformity but varies cross culturally. but normal in sherif’s time. o Group unanimity:social support (naïve participant or confed) for participant. Nicholson et al: less conformity in Asch(could be context dependent.watched alone gave verbal estimate based on own frame reference. 12 countries on asch paradign. not past 3. Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing) independent bc must hunt/fish on their own. did task alone again but remained with group norm=social norms emerge to guide in uncertain situations. 4.10 DEFINE THE TERMS CULTURE AND CULTURAL NORMS  Culture: o Lonner: common rules. Sherif’s in USA when conformity was norm.  Cultural norms and reciprocity: Ting Toomey=compared reciprocity: individualist(Australia. 6 confeds 1 partic unanimous wrong answers to 3 line card. rituals) 4. Ethics=participants deceived about purpose.o o Dickinson et al: asked student to save water-sign poster-survey-monitored shower time=3. Pro social+extended requests more accepted because of self-consistency. 133 studies. low conformity. Most powerful when self-image is involved. Higher when there is large majority group. China)=obligatory(moral failure). involving attitudes/values/beliefs/norms/behaviors. increasing confeds=increase percentage errors.  Asch: group pressure by majority effect on minority. France)= voluntary. 4. less in individualists. higher conformity in collectivist. Evaluation: say yes=commitment=follow through. 2. can to some extent explain why we conform to social/cultural norms. ambiguous).5 min less. Consequence of modernization is to some extent a break up of extended family seen in collectivist cultures + placing emphasis on individual effort and responsibilities. 12/18 in experimental. ½ partic. value. Participants resistant to change if notice gang up. established by groups for survival. Ingroup minorities have greater change of exerting influence than out-group minorities. things could’ve changed). regulates group interaction/behavior+ # of shaped value. Support increased right answer especially if came before group answer=breaking group unanimity=reducing conformity. Explicit (eg. Legal odes) or implicit (conventional practices. o Strengths: very influential. 35/37 no error. replicated several times. o Strengths: high control=cause/effect. USA. o Hofstede: culture=programming. guides in daily interactions. modified Asch.11 EXAMINE THE ROLE OF TWO CULUTRAL DIMENSIONS ON BEHAVIOR .9 DISCUSS FACTORS INFLUENCING CONFORMITY  Situation factors in conformity: group size/ group unanimity o Group size: Asch made variation.000 parent interviews. 37 alone(control for comparison). groups of 3-4 used each other=group norm. 4. Encompass communication style/marriage+how/ child raising/generation interaction. *balance review of factors relevant in understanding how compliance techniques are used as well as the implications of their use. o Kagitcibasi: socialization pattern study on parents in 9 countries. distinguishes o Matsumoto: culture=dynamic system of rules. o Berry: conformity in relation to culture. Negatives: artificiality of lab experiments hard to generalize (especially bc only male in USA).8 EVALUATE RESEARCH ON CONFORMITY TO GROUP NORMS  Sherif: experimental investigation of conformity to perceived group norm: autokinetic effect. demonstrates group norm establishment+persistence even in absence of social influence. Limitations:lab(artificial. Ethics: no informed consent. explicit/implicit. can explain how majority influences minority but not vice versa.  Can conformity research reveal anything about conformity in real life?: Moghaddam: research may have social/ cultural bias(eg.  Cultural norms as a factor in conformity: o Bond and Smith:meta analysis. embarrassing procedures. Moscovici: traditional conformity research can’t explain minority influence like independence movements. generated research. Give sense of order/safety/belonging.

modified Asch. Arbitration/mediation if they feel unfair treatment.  Etic: compares psychological phenomena across cultures to find universals in human behavior.000 IBM employees working in 66 countries.  Cultural dimension: long term vs short term orientation: Basset: qualitative. and conservation of face are central. But both cases were found. perception comparisons of conflict resolution in Australian/Chinese students in relation to collect/indiv. japan) o Long term orientation and short term orientation: Hofstede and Bond: based on confusion work dynamism: persistence. cultural variation of SSB(situational). o Kashima and Triandis: slides of unfamiliar countries to American/Japanese students. low conformity. And long/short term orientation. solve problems Policies/procedures rather than traditions/culture. Norms. loyalty. extended social group provides safety for loyalty (Korea. motives o Bartlett: Swazi hersdmen recall individual characteristics of their cattle. conclude that conflict resolution can’t be reduced to cultural dimensions. Japanese=failure with lack of ability=modesty bias. Programming/software like=determine attitude. American=success to internal. Germany. interpersonal relationships. bachelors of B&M.trustworthiness. Swazi culture revolves around possession/care of cattle. must take care of one’s self. . failure to external (dispositional. values. +enhance relationships. EMIC AND ETIC CONCEPTS  Emic: uses one culture alone to study culture specific behavior. Americans. analyze potential conflict(15 china 15 aus) Discuss how this conflict might be resolved in____. Confirmed important understanding of long/short orientation. Denmar. individualism: Wei et al: surveys on extent that dimension influenced conflict resolution style. 4. survey of 88. Inuits from Canadian Baffin Islands (hunting/fishing) independent bc must hunt/fish on their own. Hofstede: “cultural dimensions”.  Cultural dimension: collectivism vs.respect for tradition. Unlearning what is learned/internalized=difficult. USA) loose voluntary ties. Mexico. Confirmed hofstede’s for ind/collect but no explanation for all data. Questions+correlational analysis to find relationships. Only to some extent proven dimension. Qualitative cross cultural study. freedom/personal challenge/personal time. Higher in individualist=more dominating (Americans). o Culture=collective phenomenon that creates differences between groups based on dimensions. China Australia Face saving. Phenomenon link to culture (structure) and meaning in specific context emphasized.12 EXPLAIN USING EXAMPLES. Random selection 600 managers in Singapore (Japanese. Banquets+gifts (Guanxi). Tenme culture of sierra leone (agriculture for survival) conform more bc need to work together. thoughts=resistant to change. Chinese Singaporeans working in multinational and CS in local). o Collectivism vs individualism: Individualism= (France. self serving bias). o Yap: “culture bound system” (CBS) culture specific psychological disorder. Collectivism=ties to family throughout life. o Berry: conformity in relation to culture. Through local eyes.