4.2 Sociocultural level of analysis

1. 4.2 Sociocultural level of analysis Social and Cultural norms Pages 111 - 127

2. Introduction • Norms • A set of rules based on social an cultural beliefs that regulate behavior • Deviation from the norm results in • punishments, stigmatizing, marginalizing • OR (+) creative, original thinkers • How does the need to belong (social nature of humans) affect behaviors within the norms?

3. Explain social learning theory. Reference two studies Pg 111 - 115

4. Key Studies & Theories • Bandura's Bashing Bobo study (pg 112-113) • Eron & Huesmann's(1986) study of violence and television viewing (pg 114) • Kimball & Zabrack (1986) on television and violence in a Canadian village (pg 114) • Sabido method (pg 115) • *Aronson and Mills (1959) – hazing (pg 119) • Asch - conformity (pg 120) *Abrams (1990) of the Asch • Deutsch and Gerald (1955) conformity (pg 122) • Berry (1967) conformity (pg 123)

5. Social Learning Theory • Albert Bandura’s, Social Learning Theory • Humans learn behavior through observation and imitating. attention Retention Social Learning Motivation Motor reproduction

6. Observational learning: • Learning that occurs through watching the behavior of other people. • This is a highly efficient way of learning because we do not have to actually have the experience ourselves in order to learn it. • Models may be • direct (teacher to a student) or • Indirect (not trying to influence behavior)

7. Key Concepts- Bandura • Factors that are involved in social learning • Attention • Retention • Motor reproduction • Motivation – learners must want to demonstrate the behavior.

8. Factors that influence whether social learning will take place • Consistency • Identification with the model. • There is a tendency to imitate those you identify with, like age, gender, • Rewards/punishment • People learn by what happens to others, you do not have to experience the consequence. • Liking the model • Warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models.

9. Rewards/punishment • Vicarious reinforcement: • When you learn by watching someone else either receive a reward or punishment. • Vicarious reward would be when you see someone get a scholarship to a top US university because of their good grades and extra-curricular actives and then you become more committed to your school work. • Vicarious punishment is when you watch someone put their hand in a pool of hot water and get burned; you learn not to do the same thing even without having to be burned yourself.

10. Bandura et al. 1961 • Aim: • would children imitate aggressive adult models? • Were children more likely to imitate same sex models? • Method: experimental • Procedure: • Children ages 3 – 6 were grouped according to a defined aggression rating. • Each group was exposed to a different modeling behavior • After viewing the models, children were observed in a natural environments and assessed

11. Bandura et al. 1961 cont., • Findings: • Children showed signs of observational learning • Girls imitated verbal abuse observed by female model whereas boys imitated physical abuse as observed by the made model

12. Criticisms of Bandura • Method: • low ecological validity • very brief encounter with the model • the children may have been frustrated when they were taken away from the toys. • Does aggression against BoBo assume aggression against living being? • There may have been slight differences in the adult models aggressive behavior • Initial aggression assessment (grouping) may not have been accurate • Demand characteristics?

13. Criticisms of Bandura cont., • Ethics: • Is it appropriate to demonstrate violence to children? • Is there any guarantee that once violence is learned that you can unlearn it?

14. Violence in the media and its effect on aggression in children. • Social learning theory has been used to explain the role of violence in the media on aggression in children.

15. Application of social learning theory • The results of televised violence demonstrates consistently: • Children learn how to be aggressive in new ways • Children draw conclusions as to whether the behavior will bring rewards or punishments. • Eron (1986), 15 year longitudinal study • Positive correlation between number of hours violence watched on TV by elementary school children and levels of aggression when they were teenagers. • Those who watched violence on TV at 8 years of age, were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.

16. Kimball and Zabrack(1986) • Canadian study – children demonstrated a significantly higher level of aggression two years after TV was introduced to the town.

17. Charlton, Gunter & Hannan (2002), The other side of the argument • Aim: Does exposure to TV violence influence behavior? • Method: Natural Experiment • TV was first introduced to St. Helena in 1995 • Procedure: cameras were et up in the play grounds of primary schools and children were observed (ages 3-8) before and after the introduction of TV. • Findings: no significant difference in behavior after 5 year assessment

18. Why are Charlton et al. Findings so different? • What might be different about St. Helena vs. the UK or USA? • Discuss possible reasons as to why this study is so different from Bandura et al, and Kimball and Zabrack

19. Is TV always negative? • Bandura’s Social learning theory is the basis for educational presentation or shows designed to bring aware to difficult social issues • Example – Tanzania 1996 – 1996 the serial TwendenaWakati (Let’s Go with the Times) found an increase in • safe sex • women's status and • family planning.

20. Sabido Method • Sabido method: • A methodology for designing and producing serialized dramas on radio and television that can affect change of behavior in the general population with regard to important social issues, such as HIV infection, domestic violence and drug use.

21. Evaluation of Social Learning Theory • Social Learning Theory explains: • Why behavior may be passed down in families • Why children do not have to use “trial-and-error” learning to model a behavior. • Note: a behavior may be acquired, i.e. it is not learned by demonstration. • It does not explain why people do not learn a desired behavior. • people are motivated not only by modeling, but by beliefs and previous experiences

22. Discuss the use of compliance techniques. Pages 116 - 119

23. Social Influence: Compliance • Compliance – the result of direct pressure to respond to a request, even though the pressure may not be apparent to the individual. • Conformity – when the situation does not exert direct pressure to follow the majority, BUT, the pressure is perceived.

24. Compliance Techniques • Compliance techniques are the cornerstone of marketing and advertising. • Robert Cialdini: • Six factors that influence compliance • Authority – advertisers use famous people • Commitment – once you comply there is a high likelihood of repeat behavior. • Liking – people comply with request from people they like! • Reciprocity – the need to return a favor. • Scarcity – “limited quantity,” “limited time,” opportunity seems more valuable. • Social Proof – got to be right if others are doing it??????

25. Reciprocity

26. Reciprocity (pg 116-117) • Reciprocity principle – the social norm that we should treat others the way they treat us. • The rules of reciprocity state that a person must try to repay another for their gestures. • What role does guilt play in reciprocity? • Do the emotions involved with reciprocity always have to involve a tangible exchange of goods? i.e. gift giving?

27. Door-in-the-face technique • Door-in-the-face technique – a version of reciprocity in which emotions are used to elicit the “guilt” that brings about the exchange of favors. • People are more likely to accept the 2nd request • The tecnique requires 2 requests • First request will surely be turned down, because of the extreme • The second request is of lesser demand.

28. Door-in-the-face technique • Cialdini et al.(1975) – posing as a ‘county youth counselling program.’ • Control group: • “Would you be willing to take a group of juvenile delinquents to the zoo for the day?” • 83% refused • Experimental Group: • “would you be willing to sign up for two hours per week as a counselor for two years?” • All refused • “would you be willing to take a group of juvenile delinquents to the zoo for the day?” • 50% agreed (a 33% improvement)

29. Door-in-the-face technique • Where are is Door-in-the-face techniques used? • Sales techniques • Manipulation

30. Commitment (pg 118-119) • Commitment = being consistent with previous behavior. • Cialdini argues that once a person makes a commitment they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to follow through. • Kurt Lewin(1951) argued that behavior is motivated by goal gradients. • The longer people commit to something the less likely they are to abandon the goal.

31. Foot in the Door techniques • Foot in the Door techniques • Getting people to agree to something small with the hopes of persuading them to agree to something larger

32. Dickerson et al., (1992) • Aim: could the team get college students to conserve water in the dormitory showers? • Method: Field Experiment • Procedure: “Foot in the door” technique 1. students were asked to sign a poster: “take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you” 2. then they were asked to take a survey to think about their own water usage. 3. Shower times were then monitored.

33. Dickerson et al., cont., • Results: students who signed the poster and had time to think about their usage had average shower times of 3.5 minutes. Significantly shorter than average times across the dorms. • Conclusion: getting people to make a commitment to something small may influence them to accept a higher level commitment. • Concerns of this study: maybe those who signed already have a commitment to the cause?????

34. Low-balling • A persuasion and selling technique in which an item or service is offered at a low price, but the cost (price, time, commitment) is actually higher. • Cialdini et al., (1974) pg 118 example

35. Hazing • Hazing – a series of initiations in order to join an exclusive groups. • How dies hazing compare to other initiation rites seen in other cultures? • Why does this behavior continue? • Why does an individual subject themselves to the hazing? • Young, 1963, studied 54 tribal cultures: the more dramatic or stringent the ceremony the greater the solidarity of the groups

36. Can group solidarity be created without hazing? • Aronson and Mills (1959) • Aim: will someone who had to go through the hazing value the group more that someone who did not have to go through the hazing? • Method: Experiment • Procedure: • female college students were asked tp join a sex discussion group • Some had to go through a very embarrassing initiation to join while others joined without initiation. • Group meeting consisted of confederates who were trained to be as boring and uninterested as possible and the participants.

37. Can group solidarity be created without hazing? Cont., • Results: • the women who went through the initiation found the meeting to be very valuable. • The women who did not have any initiation recognized that the meetings were “worthless and uninteresting.”

38. Social Influence Summary of techniques • Reciprocity • Door-in-the-face • Commitment • Goal gradients • Foot-in-the-door • Low-balling • hazing

39. Discuss factors influencing conformity. Pages 119 - 123

40. Social Influence: Conformity • Conformity: the tendency to adjust ones thoughts, feelings or behaviors in ways that are in agreement with a particular individual or group. • “peer pressure” is an example of conformity at a school level.

41. Classic study of Conformity Asch (1951) • Aim: to what extent would a person conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous. • Method: Experimental • Procedure: • Confederates – helped the researcher deceive the participant. • Group was told they would be taking part in a psychology experiment on visual judgment

42. Asch’s line test • 18 trial were run in all. • Confederates were instructed to answer some of the trial correctly, but the majority of them incorrectly. • Result: • 75% agreed with confederates incorrect responses at least once. • 32% agreed with the incorrect responses a minimum of one-half or more trials. • 24% did not conform.

43. Why Did They Conform? • Debriefing notes revealed: • They new their response was incorrect but they did went along with the group because they did not want to discredit the results of the test, or appear to be against the group. • Some felt a sense of unease or self-doubt about their answer.

44. Factors that influence the “Asch Paradigm” • Group Size: • 1 confederate = 3%conformity • 2 confederates = 14% conformity • 3 confederates = 32% conformity • Larger groups did not increase – in case cases they may even decrese. • Unanimity: • When all confederates agreed, conformity was fairly certain • Confidence : • If the test is measuring something in a persons field of expertise, conformant is less likely. • Self-esteem: • Those with high self-esteem are less likely to conform.

45. A Critical Look at Asch • Artificiality and ecological validity??? • Do these experiments accurately predict how people will react in real-life situations? • Demand Characteristics • Culture • In the original study only one culture was studies and the group was not multicultural • Ethical Considerations • Deception, feelings of anxiety about their performance today this would not be regarded as acceptable • Friend et al. (1990) there is a bias in the interpretations. Argues what factors caused people to dissent rather than influence to conform.

46. Can a Minority Opinion Sway the Majority? • Hogg an Vaughan (1995), reasons a minority can influence the majority: • Dissenting opinions produce uncertainty and doubt • Such opinions show that that alternatives exist • Consistency show that there is a commitment to the alternative view. • Examples: • Women’s rights to vote, • Civil rights movement, • environmental protection.

47. Groupthink – is characterized by having complete unanimity among the group. • Often the group is blindsided and unprepared for alternative possibilities. • AVOID GROUPTHINK • Brainstorm • Look at alternatives • Play devils advocate

48. Why do People Conform? • Deutsch and Gerard (1955) • Informational social influence – how people cognitively process information about a situation. • Normative social influence– people have the need to belong. They conform to avoid rejection. “I realize this looks silly, but I want to hang with these guys.”

49. Why do People Conform? Cont., • Festinger(1954)– “Social comparison”: What is everybody else doing?? • When we notice there is a difference and it creates an anxiety, Festinger refers to this as Cognitive dissonance.

50. Cultural Aspects of Conformity • True or False: • Asian cultures engage in more conforming behavior and value conformity to a greater degree than Americans. • True • Americans see conformity as a negative trait. • True • Cashmore and Goodnow(1986) high level of conformity among Italians. • Burgos and Dias-Perez (1986) Puerto Ricans valued conformity and obedience in regard to childreaing.