Summary

Summary IB Psychology HL Sociocultural approach studies

0 purchase

Course
Psychology HL

Institution
St Clare’s International College, Oxford

Contains detailed notes on all studies, sufficient for ERQs, needed to study the sociocultural approach for IB psychology at HL including the Globalisation extension portion.

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 15 pages

View example

Uploaded on June 2, 2023
Number of pages 15
Written in 2022/2023
Type Summary

globalisation
psychology
psych
sociocultural
approach
studies
study
social identity
culture
ib
hl

Institution
St Clare’s International College, Oxford
Education Unknown
Course
Psychology HL

$11.01

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Tajfel’s experiment: the minimal group paradigm (1971)
Aim

The aim of this experiment was to prove the hypothesis that when placed into social categories, we
are inclined to favour our ingroup, acting to benefit ourselves and those grouped with us, in addition
to discriminating against outgroups.

Participant demographic and procedure

48 boys aged 14-15 years old were split into two groups based on (as they were told) their
preferences of paintings between two artists. This immediately created an ingroup for each
participant: the people who had the same preference as them, and an outgroup: the group of boys
that preferred the other artist. Although at this point none of them knew each other, a minimal
group paradigm has been created, as the basic conditions of triggering group biases is in place
because the boys were assigned members of a group.

The boys were placed into individual booths where they were told to assign points based on a
system, where they can give points to someone in their ingroup but at the same time assigns a
corresponding number of points to someone in the outgroup. Observations were then made based
on the point option the boys were more inclined to pick and the strategy that is applicable to that
choice.

Results

After the experiment, it was found that the boys always preferred the options that gave their own
group a higher number of points, or rather to give both groups less points in order to maximise the
difference in points given to their ingroup versus outgroup. Some also decided to give the same
amount of points to both groups, but the maximum joint profit strategy (most points for both sides
although it meant giving slightly more points to the outgroup) was least favoured.

Some observations

• Only a minimal group (basic grouping conditions) is necessary to trigger us into favouring our
ingroup and discriminating against the outgroups
• May be different in various cultures where cooperation is held at high importance
• Constraints: there was a very specific age group experimented on and perhaps at this age a
reward system is important and therefore made them more likely to try to win. Additionally,
the whole experiment is set up in a more competitive environment and maybe if it was
performed in an environment of natural interactions, they would be less discriminatory
against their outgroup.

Explanation

• Discrimination norm: once we are placed into groups, we tend to discriminate against
outgroups; this could mean acting to cause disadvantage to an outgroup even if it benefits
our ingroups less.
• Demand characteristics: this means the clues that are given to the participants of the study
about the purpose of the experiment and what they are trying to prove (not explicitly), and
this may influence the way they perform as they could try to alter their behaviour to prove
the hypothesis. However, in this case, the favouritism for ingroups and discrimination

, towards outgroups is also observed in natural environments, therefore it wouldn’t be a main
factor in the results of the experiment.
• Self-interest and reciprocity norm: In the context of this experiment, this would indicate
giving yourself/your ingroup the highest number of points possible without considering the
impact on the outgroup. Nevertheless, participants tried to maximise the difference in profit
even though it meant sacrificing a higher number of points for their own group, which is not
explained if self-interest is at play.

The Social Identity Theory

The SIT is built upon our behaviour when being categorised into social groups, which we are
classified into with others based on similar characteristics and traits. With the creation of ingroups
and outgroups, we automatically form a bond with those in our ingroup and would act in favour of
them, while discriminating against those in our outgroups. Lastly, we try to elevate our ingroup’s
status amongst the outgroups to seem better and more distinct. The following are four main aspects
that make up our behaviour in social categorisation:

1. identification with the ingroup
2. ingroup favouritism
3. outgroup discrimination
4. positive distinctiveness

Bagby and Rector (1992) - Ingroup bias
Aim

This study by Bagby and Rector focuses on one aspect of the Social Identity Theory, which is in-group
bias, meaning we prefer people in our own group versus those that we identify as members of
outgroups. They created an experiment using a courtroom scenario, the two groups being
Francophones and Anglophones. The experimenters wanted to observe whether Tajfel et al.’s
findings about the SIT were valid in a prexisting group context as he had created a minimal group
paradigm, a more artificial setting.

Participants

They created two groups: the French and English speaking Canadians, who were all students in the
University of Quebec in Montreal. In total there were 102 psychology students, in which 27% were
male. They chose the participants based on their ethnicity because they wanted to demonstrate in-
group bias in a more ecologically valid situation of a sexual assault court case.

Procedure

The participants were asked to read a transcript of a sexual assault trial, and the only difference was
the ethnicity of the victim and of the defendant. So there were four conditions in total, as two of
those groups had a transcript of the French victim and two of them had the transcript with an
English victim; meaning half of the participants were of the same ethnicity as the victim on their
transcript. They were tasked to read the transcript then give a score of 1-7 on how guilty they
believed the defendant was.

Results

The results showed that when the participant was of the same ethnicity as the defendant, they rated
them as less guilty compared to if the defendant was of the other ethnicity, perhaps because they

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ashleykwan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $11.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67479 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling