IDENTITY RESEARCH UNIT

Sean Kim
Age Range of Experimental Subjects
Ages 14-16 (Sophomores)

Focus Location for Observation

Varied. Stated in the next table.
Theory of Use
Social Identity -
A person's sense of who they are based upon group memberships

Social Cognitive Theory -

Group behaviour is modeled by others members of a group and group behavior is acquired
through observation or imitation based on consequences of a behaviour

Focus / Forms

● What they do at lunch

● Interests they have
● 3 friends they hang out at lunch
● Do they like the activities they do at lunch? (scale of 1-6)
● Is your lunch group the same as your normal friend group? How similar (scale of 1-6??)
RESEARCH
QUESTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Research Question -
To what extent can we see social cognitive theory within SFS sophomores when observing their activities
performed during lunch within in-groups?

Justification -
In this task, my group and I will be observing how well the social cognitive theory is expressed through SFS sophomore
activities during their lunch time. Since we are observing only sophomores, the ages of our subjects will vary from 14-16. The
subjects activities can vary but I will simplify the locations (Gym, HS, Field, Library, Etc).

Inquiry question: “Investigate how our school’s social dynamics can be explained by social cognitive and/or social identity theory.”

Our research question correlates to the inquiry question as answering the research question will explain a part of our school’s
social dynamic. We are looking for observations that can help express the social cognitive theory. The social dynamic that we
will observe is how the activities an individual will do at lunch is influenced by their in-group. We will also be assessing how
much they enjoy what they are doing at lunch. This will all be concluded by a connection to the social cognitive theory, “ Group
behaviour is modeled by others members of a group and group behavior is acquired through observation or imitation based on
consequences of a behaviour”. The observations of activities done at lunch will indicate the social dynamics and can better prove
the social cognitive theory.
OBSERVATION
PLAN
Observation Time(s)
Specifics
What we are going to observe.
11:40-12:25 , 12:30-1:10
(Group member will observe fifth period lunch)
8 observations, 2 times
Observe an individual and include three of their friends
they hang out with at lunch.
We will see what our subjects do at lunch, their
interests, and three friends they hang out with at lunch.
We will also be asking if they like what they do at lunch
(scale rating from 1-6), and if their lunch group is
similar as their normal friend group (scale rating from
1-6).
OBSERVATIONS
Observations: Part One

Activity Interests Do they like the activities they Is your lunch group the
are doing during lunch? (1-6) same as your normal friend
group? How similar (scale
of 1-6??)

Subject 1 Playing Basketball Volleyball 4 6

at the gym (UAC)

Subject 2 Playing Volleyball Volleyball 6 2

at the gym (UAC)

Subject 3 Playing computer Video Games 5 6

games (League of
Legends)

Subject 4 Studying at the Studying 2 6

Library
Observations: Part Two

Activity Interests Do they like the activities they Is your lunch group the
are doing during lunch? (1-6) same as your normal friend
group? How similar (scale
of 1-6??)

Subject 5 Talking in the HS Soccer 1 5 (Did not receive a 6

building (cafe) because a person was missing
due to different lunch times)

Subject 6 Playing soccer on Soccer 6 6

the field

Subject 7 Playing Volleyball Volleyball 6 6

on the field

Subject 8 Sleeping in the N/A N/A N/A

Library
Observations: Part Three

Activity Interests Do they like the activities they Is your lunch group the
are doing during lunch? (1-6) same as your normal friend
group? How similar (scale
of 1-6??)

Subject 9 Playing Table Video Games 4 6

Tennis at the Gym
Lobby

Subject 10 Playing Basketball Basketball 6 6

at the gym (Main
gym)

Subject 11 Talking at the cafe N/A 4 6

Subject 12 Sleeping at the N/A N/A N/A

gym lobby
INVESTIGATIVE
OBSERVATION
SUMMARY (IOS)
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

Overall, the activities that my subjects did frequently matched my subject’s interests and they usually enjoyed the activity. There
were some outliers in the data as some subjects I observed were either sleeping or I simply did not know anything about them.
The students who were in the gym playing Basketball, played with their usual in-group. The students who were playing
Volleyball in the gym, enjoyed the activity but did not play with their usual in-group. The students who were playing video
games were with their usual in-groups. On the second day, there were groups who were talking in the HS building, groups
playing sports on the field, and students who were sleeping. The students mostly got a very high score for how much they
enjoyed their activity and they were all playing with their usual in-groups. There was one subject that did not like what they
were doing but stayed since he was with his usual in-group, he would’ve definitely much rather have played soccer on the field.
This indicated social cognitive theory as this subject is simply just following his group rather than doing something he wants to
do. In the gym on the third day, there were students who were playing Basketball, playing table tennis, or just sleeping. There
was also a group of students talking in the HS cafe, the student I was observing was in his in-group but did not enjoy the activity
as much. The student playing table tennis generally liked the activity and was with her usual in-group and the student playing
basketball, loved basketball and was with their normal ingroup.
CONCLUSIONS

Referring back to research question:

“To what extent can we see social cognitive theory within SFS sophomores when observing their activities performed during lunch within
in-groups?”

Overall, the sophomore students I have observed mostly show that the activities done in their lunch periods are mainly
influenced by their in-groups. Although there were some outliers such as students who were sleeping or not having their entire
in-group in their lunch period, there were barely any contradicting data. The data that best answers the research question are
when the subjects don't enjoy the activity, yet, still does it due to just following their in-group. We can see social cognitive
theory here because these subjects would rather just follow their usual, comfortable in-groups around rather than to do
something they would better enjoy. Subject 4 and 5 produced the most notable data as they really did not enjoy their activity but
were with their usual in-group. These are great examples of social cognitive theory as their choice in activity and behaviour
were influenced by their usual in-groups.

Social Cognitive Theory:

The observations I have made showed that the social cognitive theory is evident in SFS sophomores. The subjects disliking their
activity yet still going with it, only because of their in-group, show that their behaviour/actions are influenced by the
behaviour/actions of their group.
GROUP
REFLECTIVE
SYNTHESIS (GRS)
 To wrap up, we came to a final conclusion that social cognitive theory plays a large role in determining activities and choices
made during lunch within the sophomores. Social cognitive theory had a large presence within in-groups especially during lunch time
when it came to deciding their lunch choices, what they were going to do next, etc. which showed individualism/collectivism, the group
dynamic, and power distance of the sophomores. We predict that if we upscaled our data into a more generalized wider spectrum, the
results would be similar showing that social cognitive theory plays a substantial role in the community. The first observation we talked
about when analysing our conclusions was the definite divergence between the leader of an in-group and the “followers”. In every group
we observed, we found that there was a leader or two that made the larger decisions that affected the whole group. This exhibits the set
values between the different students present in an in-group. We discussed how we think that the leader of an in-group is decided solely
on personality traits regarding more extroverted people as compared to introverts. Extroverts as according to the Myers-Briggs
Personality Test are known to have values that are greatly important to them that they must share aloud and perform directly in the
moment. This can be seen when the leader often throws out an idea of what the group should do and usually the bystanders and others in
the in-group follow along. Therefore, we discussed how the leader of the group values individualism as compared to the others in the
in-group that focuses on collectivism by agreeing with the others. Also discussed was how the age we are currently in greatly affects the
in-groups we are a part of. Being in High School, most of us are already put in a friend group naturally which leads to many having the
tendency to stay with the individuals we are already familiar with. Due to this, we think that students heavily depend on each other to
help decide whether choices are good or bad. This topic came up while talking about the effect that one student had when picking ice
cream flavors. Since everyone has their own preferences and opinion, it is completely normal for people to like different flavor ice
creams. Yet, even so, with one person recommending a flavor, the whole group was influenced to get the flavor. This was a strong
instance when the power distance between the leader of the group and the minorities within the in-group was clearly demonstrated. Even
without knowing, we came to a quick realization that there is no way for an in-group to be perfectly equal in power therefore, there will
always be a divine as a result of characteristics, moral ethics, and more factors. We found that even within our project group, there is the
individual that is more critical and shares ideas as compared to the people who listen without sharing their thoughts.
(continued)
Through our research, we reflected on the strength and weakness of our data. A strength that due to knowing the students in the
grade as it is our grade (10th grade), we were able to quickly figure out in-groups naturally. This helps us to hold out our experiments
because we already had prior knowledge on the general outlooks of the in-groups which was beneficial when distinguishing the
members in the in-group or the out-groups. We thought that this was important as if we were observing in-groups with the wrong
subjects meaning that people of other in-groups were temporarily part of the group, our data would be not fully accurate. We probably
would have not noticed this factor until analysing our data when we would find some irrelevant outliers that throw our data off. Next,
another strength is that our research question was very “to the point”. As our independent variables were the in-groups and we were
simply changing the groups we observed daily, the data collection period was very open while still being clear and exact being able to
be justified. Following our criterion, as long as it was an in-group in the sophomore class that had lunch during fourth period, we could
observe any group. This gave us the ability to look at a variety of personalities within groups to give us more accurate data. Relating
on, another benefit that was not necessarily on our behalf but on Mr. Busbee’s was our group (consisting of Glenn, Clare, Ryan, Sean)
itself. In the beginning, it was not the easiest circumstance to work with as we were mostly very unfamiliar with each other coming
from different in-groups ourselves. But this turned out as a positive aspect as we were able to look at a large spectrum of in-groups. At
the end of the day, our group from our perspective, was very well pieced together to fill in the small components that we ourselves
wouldn’t have been able to do individually.
Although overall, our research question was answered strongly, there are still some unavoidable weaknesses that we found in
the process. A major weakness we identified through our group discussion was the injection of personal bias in our observations. Since
our group was already familiar with most of the in-groups in the sophomore grade, there is a large chance that our observations were
influenced upon our level of subjectivity or “rigged”. This resulted in us often making theoretical assumptions on the observations
made. Another key weakness we quickly realized was how short of time our observation sessions were. Being only around 10-20
minutes, it was hard to grasp a clear idea of an in-groups social cognitive resemblance as time was quite restricting. We could have
watched the same group multiple times but due to project timeline constraints, we were unable to do so and aimed more on focusing on
and observing a variety of in-groups within the grade.
(continued)

Finally, we talked about some extensions and ways that we could enhance the quality and performance of this research. In order to
fully extend the social experiment to draw conclusions on the whole SFS community, which is what is stated in the statement of inquiry,
our gathered data is insufficient. It may be detailed enough to synthesize a broad generalization, but it is too eclectic to make assumptions
on the whole community. To enhance this, we discussed how we should observe a few in-groups from each grade. This would turn into a
larger project as we would have to make observations on all the grades in our community possibly including teachers as they are an
important and large part of our community. If that is not realistic or possible, a simplified version would be to at least observe the different
sections in our school. (High School, Elementary School, Middle School, British School, Faculty) Thinking and compensating long term,
that would be a very thorough and circumstantial that would give us clear direction and conclusions on our research question. In
conclusion, we personally think that this project on an overall whole was very successful as we were able to easily communicate with each
other and depend on one another to do and prepare their share of the project.