4.2 Reciprocity: Foot in the door, Door in the face, Low-balling, Hazing

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is a compliance technique. The reciprocity principle is that "we should treat people the way that they treat us". Reciprocity is a way of creating confidence among people in that what is given to another is not lost but rather a sign of a future obligation that enables development of various kinds of relationships and exchanges. The rule of reciprocity is so common and universal that it can be used to one's advantage, and often is.

When someone does something very kind to you, you feel obliged to repay them in some way - perhaps by being kind to them, or offering a small gift as a sign of gratitude. When you don't reciprocate what has been done to you, you feel guilty. This feeling of guilt is how reciprocity can be used for manipulation in response to a request. 

Reciprocity does not always involve gifts. Reciprocity can occur when you feel that somebody has compromised on what he or she wanted for you, and you feel that you should not have them have to compromise for you once again. You feel as if the initial compromise should be acknowledged in some form or another.

1. Foot in the door technique (FITD)

A small request is used as an instrument to lead to the true, larger request. This technique is employed by getting someone to do something small, in the hopes that they will comply with even larger requests in the future. Dickerson et al (1992) found that the FITD technique was effective in promoting commitment: Dickerson et al wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in their dormitory showers. They first asked the students to sign a poster that said "take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you". ( - This is the small request). Then, the researchers asked them to take a survey that was designed to make them reflect on their shower times and water wastage. Third, their shower times were monitored. The participants that had signed the petition and answered the survey had shorter shower times than the students who did not do the two things. 

2. Door in the face technique (DITF)

A large request that the asker is certain will be turned down is asked first. Then, the asker asks a smaller, more feasible request (which is the true request) in an attempt to exploit reciprocity within the subject. People are more likely to respond positively to the second request because they feel as if the asker has already had to compensate once, with the larger request. Cialdini et al (1975) studied the effectiveness of the DITF technique by pretending to be representatives of the "County Youth Counselling Programme" and asking college students if they were willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo (a large, unfeasible request for college kids). 83% of the college students refused. To another group, Cialdini et al initially asked them if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours a week as counselors for a minimum of two years (an unfeasible request). Nobody agreed to this task either. Then, the true request was made ( - and it seemed a lot more reasonable, in comparison to the first request!). The college students were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a day trip to the zoo for juvenile delinquents: 50% of the students agreed to chaperone. This experiment shows how effective the DITF technique can be, and thus how it can be exploited in real life.

3. Low-balling

Low-balling is a persuasion technique that is used when something that is very feasible is requested, but the request is later changed to a larger request that is harder to agree with. The concept is, that because the subjects already agreed to a project, that they would not refuse once the details were changed. Cialdini et al (1974) demonstrated the effect of low-balling in a class of first-year psychology students. He asked them to participate in a study on cognition, and that they would meet at 7:00 in the morning. Only 24 per cent of students were willing to participate due to the early time. Next, another group was told to meet, without being told the time. 56 per cent of students agreed to participate. It was only then that they were told the meeting time would be at 7:00 am. However, 95 per cent of those who already said that they would participate actually showed up, showing how effective it is to low-ball.

4. Hazing

Hazing is a controversial practice of reciprocity where a series of initiation rites that are performed in order for a person to join a certain exclusive social group. Hazing is similar to initiation rites that are seen in various cultures, such as in African tribes where there are initiation rites for young men to indicate that they have become adults. Hazing continues despite being painful, humiliating or dangerous because it is the individual's choice (initially) that he/she wants to join a group. At the time of decision, the individual is cognisant of the pain that he/she will have to endure to join the group, but resolves to join anyway. During the hazing, one has to rationalise that the pain, or the endurance of it, is "worth it" if they could become a part of the group. Once hazing is accomplished and the individual is accepted into the group, they are filled with a sense of accomplishment and ingroup favoritism. Young (1963) found that out of 54 tribal cultures, those that had the most stoic hazing rites were those that had the greatest group solidarity. 

Social Representations and Stereotypes

Social Representations

Social representations are defined as the shared beliefs and explanations help by a society in which we live, or the group to which we belong. (Moscovici, 1973). Moscovici argued that social representations were at the foundation of social cognition: social representations help us make sense of our world and master it, enabling communication to take place among members in a group. That is to say, cultural schemata are funamental to the identity of the group, and provide the group with common understanding and a ground for communication.

Cultures have different views and ideals: cultural schemata are what influence these differences. Adler (1990) asked a Russian mother what it meant for her children to share something: "to use it together". He asked an American mother what it meant for her children to share something "to take turns using it independently".

Howarth (2002) carried out focus-group interviews with adolescent girls in Brixton, to study how these girls described and evaluated themselves. Howarth found that the girls had a positive view of being "from Brixton" which was contrasted with the views of people outside of Brixton. This may be a sign of positive social identity due to ingroup favoritism.

Stereotypes and their effects on behavior

A stereotype is defined as a social perception of an individual in terms of his or her group membership. Stereotypes are generalisations that are made about a group that are then attributed to each individual member of a group. These generalisations can end up being positive or negative. Example: "women are talented speakers" vs "all women do is gossip"

Stereotypes are able to influence the person who believes it, as well as who the stereotype is referring to. Researchers explain stereotyping as a result of schema processing.

Stereotype threats: the effect of stereotypes on an individual's performance:

A stereotype threat is something that occurs when an individual is in a situation where there is a threat of being judged or treated stereotypically, or a fear of doing something that might inadvertently confirm the stereotype. 

Steele and Aronson (1995): A study on stereotype threat

Aim: to see the effect that stereotype threats had on performance.

Procedure: They carried out an experiment to see the effect of stereotype threats on performance. A 30 minute verbal test made up of difficult multiple choice questions were given to African American students and European American students. In the first trial, the researchers told the students that they were being "genuinely tested of verbal ability". As a result, the African American students did much worse than the European American students. However, in the second trial, when the researchers told the students that they were being tested to see "how certain problems were generally solved", the African American's scores increased compared to the first trial's, and were up to par with the European American students. This shows that stereotype threat can happen to any member in a group that is stereotyped, and can affect the way that they perform or behave. This may explain why some racial or social groups seem to identify themselves as more inept than other groups. Believing in such stereotypes can actually lower ability or performance.

Steele (1997): stereotype threats turns on spotlight anxiety which causes emotional distress and pressure that may undermine an individual's performance ability. This is why students under stereotype threats can under-perform, and fulfill the stereotype that is being place on them. Additionally, stereotypes and stereotype threats can limit student's education prospects. 

Spencer et. al (1977): Testing the effect stereotype threats have on intellect

Spencer et al tested how stereotype threats can influence a student's intellectual capability.

Procedure: the researchers gave difficult maths test to students who were strong in mathematics, predicting that women under stereotype threat would underperform compared to the men taking the test. (Stereotype: women are worse at math than men). The stereotype threat causes women taking the test to see mathematics as an important part of their self-definition, so that a stereotype threat might result in an interfering pressure under test conditions.

Result: stereotype threat had caused women to significantly underperform against men, while their mathematics capabilities were the same as the men's. The validity of the experiment is justified through the same experiment occurring with literature tests: women did not underperform as they were not under any stereotype threats.

How stereotypes form

Tajfel argues that stereotypes are a natural cognitive process from social categorisation (categorising who is in the ingroup / outgroup), it does not explain how stereotypes form. Stereotypes are a salient part of our social and cultural environment: we learn stereotypes through daily interactions, conversations and the media. Additionally, they are not based only on an individual's experience with a member of a group. They are also influenced by cultural and social factors: stereotypes are contextualised, and not simply the results of an individual's cognitive process. Stereotypes are often held by large groups as social representations (=social representations: the beliefs that are held by a group). Campbell (1967) maintains that it is this convergence with personal experience and the influence of social and cultural environments that cause stereotypes to form. His grain of truth hypothesis argues that an experience with an individual from a group will be generalised to the whole group. 

Hamilton and Gifford (1976) have another hypothesis as to how stereotypes were formed: Hamilton and Gifford argue that stereotypes are a product of illusory correlation: people see a relationship between two variables even when they are not related. This occurs when people associate a social group to the specific behaviors of those that belong to that group. This illusory correlation lead people to make false associations and links between unrelated variables. They come in many forms and some culturally based prejudices are a result of illusory correlation.

Once illusory correlations are made, people seek out or remember information that supports that relationship of variables. This is an example of confirmation bias: when people look for evidence that supports their theory, and ignore all evidence that goes against it. In context to stereotypes, the individuals in a group that do not conform to the stereotype given about that group are ignored, or dismissed as outliers. Confirmation bias is why stereotypes are unlikely to disappear. 

Snyder and Swann (1978) conducted a study in which they told female college students that they would meet a person who was either an introvert or an extrovert. They were then asked to prepare a set of questions for the person they were going to meet. Participants came up with questions that corresponded to the type of person that they were told that they would meet. Those that thought they were meeting an introvert had questions like "What do you dislike about parties?", "Are there times when you wish you were more outgoing?" and those that thought they were meeting extroverts prepared questions like "what do you do to liven up a party?". Snyder and Swann concluded that the questions confirmed the participants' stereotypes of the personality types that they were told they would meet.

It was also found that a stereotype may be adopted by a person in order to be in consensus with an ingroup. Rogers and Frantz (1962) found that white immigrants to Zimbabwe held more prejudices and stereotypes of the people there than were held back in America. This was thought to be so that the immigrants could be in agreement with the ingroup (whites) in Zimbabwe. 

The Princeton Trilogy

1. Katz and Braley (1933) performed an experiment investigating how traditional social stereotypes had a cultural basis by asking 100 males students that attended Princeton University to choose 5 words from a list of 84 words to describe different ethnicities. Results showed that there were many words chosen for certain ethnic groups, and that they confirmed negative stereotypes. Additionally, they were extremely positive about their own ethnic group (ingroup favoritism to maintain a successful social identity). Conclusion: as most of the Princeton students never came into contact with the ethnic groups that they categorised, it was assumed that stereotypes were formed through gateways such as media and cultural views. 

2. Gilbert (1951) replicated the experiment of Katz and Braley but found that more people were reluctant to categorise ethnic groups into words that defined them. There was also less uniformity of agreement about unfavorable traits compared to the 1933 study. However, the conclusion from the 1933 study was also concluded in this study as the students held extremely negative views of the Japanese ethnic group (most likely due to Pearl Harbor) and this information was relayed to them from television, radio and news. 

3. Karlins et. al (1969) the most recent replication of this study was one where students objected to classifying ethnic groups. When the task was completed, there was greater agreement on the stereotypes assigned to the different groups compared to the 1951 Gilbert study. Researchers concluded that this was a reemergence of social stereotyping but in the direction of a more favorable stereotype image.

Stereotype formation

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1970)

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)

Social Identity is the way that one identifies with himself in relation to his memberships to various social groups, and the value of being in that group ( - "Social comparison": when one weighs the pros and cons of being in his own group [ingroup] and another group [outgroup] )

Individuals try to maintain a positive self-image and self-esteem. The groups that they belong in, and the social comparisons of the groups and other groups will affect how the individual values himself. To protect oneself from low self-esteem (which would arise from being in a group with little advantages,) the individual may express ingroup favoritism, and a pattern of discrimination with the outgroup. 

= When a social comparison results in a positive outcome for the individual's ingroup, the need for a positive social identity is fulfilled. However, if the outcome is negative, this could result in low self-esteem, shame, embarrassment, etc. 

Cialdini et al (1976): College students were more likely to wear school gear (hats, sweaters, shirts) when their football team wins a match. This is mostly likely due to the students' need for a positive self-concept / self-image. The positive self-image brought on by winning a game can result in bias and predilection for ingroups, and all the things the ingroup represents.

Intergroup discrimination can be a way to uphold a positive social identity for an ingroup.

How social identity is built by an individual.

Tajfel (1970) Experiment in intergroup discrimination: minimal group paradigm

Aim: to see if boys who were randomly placed in groups based on a meaningless task would display ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination.

Experiment 1: 64 schoolboys of ages 14 to 15 were invited to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. The boys all knew each other well. Boys were seen moving clusters on a computer screen, and were told to estimate the number of dots that were in each cluster. Boys were then randomly assigned to groups such as "over-estimator" and "under-estimator". Then, boys had to hand out money to the other boys in the experiment. All the boys knew was whether the other boy was in or not in his own group.

Experiment 2: boys were randomly allocated into groups according to which artist's art they liked better. The boys then had to award money to other boys.

Results: boys gave more money to members in their own category (i.e. boys that were in the ingroup). In the second experiment, the boys tried to maximise the difference between the two groups. Both experiments indicate ingroup favoritism which supports the predictions of the social identity theory.

Evaluate: results contributed to the development of the social identity theory. Tajfel demonstrated that a minimal group is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. This experiment was criticised for being too artificial, and having demand characteristics. Boys might have thought the task was competitive, which caused them to react the way that they did (i.e. exhibit ingroup favoritism and discriminate between the outgroup).This study also established that intergroup conflict is not necessary to create induce ingroup favoritism. 

Social identity theory has contributed to explaining how stereotypes, prejudices and conformity to ingroup norms have occurred. 

SLA: All About Bobo Dolls (Albert Bandura 1961)

Social Learning Theory:
Albert Bandura of Stanford University first suggested the Social Learning Theory as a reaction against the passive conception of humans in behaviorism. (He believed that reducing behavior as "stimulus-response" was much too simplistic... he refers to himself as an adherent of social cognitivism.)

Social Learning Theory refers to the paradigm that suggests that society / culture passes on its norms to individuals within a group. Social Learning Theory assumes that humans learn behavior via observational learning - that people learn by watching models and imitating the model's behavior.

- The model can intentionally try to teach an agent how to behave. Examples: teachers, parents, priests 

- The model might not try to directly affect the agent. Examples: actors, media, television, passersby

The Social Learning Theory involves the following factors for an agent to be successful in imitating a model:

1. Attention: the model performing the act must catch the attention of the agent
2. Retention: the agent must be able to remember how the model was acting
3. Motor reproduction: the agent must be able to emulate what he observed from the model
4. Motivation: the agent must will to perform the observed act 

There are also factors that influence the agent's motivation to emulate the observed model:

1. Likeness: agents will feel more motivation to emulate a model if they feel alike it it
2. Consistency: agents are more likely to copy consistent behavior
3. Rewards / punishments: these will act as incentives / deterrents to copy a model (respectively)
4. Liking the model: the more an agent likes the model, the higher the chances are that the agent will emulate the model

- E X A M P L E -

Albert Bandura et al. 1961 - Bobo Doll Experiment

• Aim: To see whether children would imitate aggression that they observed modelled by at adult (Social Learning theory). Also, to see whether the gender-likeness of the model would influence the aggression in the children.
• Procedure: Children from the ages of 3-6 years old were used for this study. They were divided into groups depending on their level of aggression, classified by their teachers and their parents. One group of children observed a video of an adult repeatedly beating a Bobo doll.
  A second group of children simply saw a video of an adult assembling toys in a room.
  A third group saw no video (control group)
  *In groups 1 and 2, some children saw same-sex models while others saw different gendered models.
  After watching the video, the children were placed in a room with toys and told the toys were for different children. They were then taken to another room with a Bobo doll. 
• Results: Group 1 (that observed the aggressive model) was the most aggressive group. They expressed physical and verbal aggression. Female subjects were more prone to exercise verbal aggression while male subjects exercised physical aggression. They displayed signs of observational learning.
  When the boys saw the female models in the video hitting the Bobo doll, they exclaimed: "Hey! Girls shouldn't act like that!"... thus the agents / subjects were more prone to emulate same-sex models.
• Evaluation:
  

4.1-4.2 SLA Outcomes

Sociocultural Level of Analysis

4.1 Sociocultural Cognition

•Outline principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, the social and cultural environment influences individual behavior; we want connectedness with, and a sense of belonging to, others; we construct our conceptions of the individual and social self).

One principal that defines the sociocultural level of analysis is the fact that humans are social animals and have a basic need to belong. Human behavior can only be fully understood when the social context the human is in is taken into account. Not only is the individual affected by a larger group, but the larger group is affected by the individual as well.

Culture is another principle that defines the sociocultural level of analysis because the beliefs that are deeply embedded in a culture the individual is in affects the way an individual perceives and understands things. The study of culture will help us further understand the effects it has on an individual's behavior, and appreciate the different in cultures. A third principle that defines the sociocultural level of analysis is that people have a social self as well as an individual self. This means that people behave differently when they are in social situations. Lastly, a principle that defines the sociocultural level of analysis is the fact that the way an individual perceives things are unlikely to change. A persons views of the world are unlikely to change because of prior experiences, such as culture.

• Explain how principles that define the sociocultural level of analysis may be demonstrated in research.

The goal is to see how people interact with each other, so the majority of research that is used for sociocultural research is qualitative. It is important to have subjects act in the most natural way that is possible, so experiments or studies that lack ecological validity are best to be avoided. Because we need subjects to act in a natural way, most of the studies used are naturalistic - as it really is. Participant observations, covert experiments, interviews and focus groups are used to collect and analyze data.

• Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level of analysis (for example, participant/naturalistic observation, interviews, case studies).
• Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis.

 Methods that are used in research for sociocultural level of analysis are; participant observations, interviews, focus groups… these are all the best ways to observe the way an individual interacts with others in a social setting because they help keep the research/studies as naturalistic as possible - as the way things really are. The best method to ensure that subjects act in a natural way is "participant observation". The experimenter or researcher places him or herself in a social setting for an extended period of time and observes the behavior of the subject in their natural environment. These participant observations can be either covert (where the participant doesn't know they're being observed) or overt (where the participant knows they are being observed.) When it is overt, there is a chance that the participant may not act naturally… they may change the way they act. Therefore, in overt observations, it is important for the subject to trust the researcher. The researcher needs to be nonjudgmental and try to see the world through the subject's eyes. Covert observations do not have the problem of the subject acting in an unnatural way, which is an advantage. Covert observations are used with groups that may be a potential threat if they knew they were being observed - such as groups involved in gangs and drug transactions. Covert observations record the participant’s information without their consent, which has the potential to be an ethical violation in terms of the participant's privacy concerns.

• Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behavior.

People are inclined to attribute dispositional (internal) and situational factors towards people's and their own behavior. People tend to attribute reasons to things that happen because they need reasons to understand why things happen. When people have reasons, they feel more stable and less tense, as opposed to when there are no reasons to explain why certain things have taken place. In the attribution theory, there are two types of factors people tend to use; dispositional factors, where people attribute reasons to the individual's personality, thoughts and opinions (For example, if a date was late to dinner: "does he actually hate me?" "he must think I'm boring…") and situational factors, where the individual's situation is held responsible for the happening (For example, if a date was late to dinner: "his alarm clock must be lagging." or "maybe a car ran over him?")

• Discuss two errors in attributions (for example, fundamental attribution error, illusory correlation, self‑serving bias).

Fundamental attribution error is an error in attribution in which people tend to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in an individual's behavior, and underestimate an individual's situational factors. People tend to gather information of other people by observing them and their actions, which usually leads to illogical conclusions. People tend to think of them-selves as adaptable and flexible, and easy to accept change. However, when people look at others, they do not have ENOUGH information to make a balanced decision, become a bit illogical and tend to attribute their behavior to disposition. (For example; "Oh, he's just that type of person")

Self-serving bias is an error in attribution that is similar to the fundamental attribution error. Self-serving bias is when people tend to accredit their successes to their own dispositional factors. On the other hand, people also tend to attribute their failures to situational factors. They do this to disassociate themselves from their own failures and to protect and stabilize our self-esteem. Thus, we can say that the attribution error, self-serving bias is a way for ourselves to protect ourselves.

• Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.

The social identity theory is a theory that assumes that people strive to improve their own self-images by creating a larger self-esteem, based on their personal identity or social identities. People can increase their self-esteem by being with successful in-groups, and doing so indicates the importance of social belonging. The social identity theory is also based on the process of social categorization… categorizing successful in-groups and in-group favoritism, as well as conformity to in-group norms. When people are in a group, they assume that it is their in-group, and all others outside of their in-group are a part of the out-group. They develop in-group favoritism and discrimination against the out-group. This favoring the in-group and discriminating the out-group is also known as "social comparison", which is a way that people maintain and heighten their self-esteem. Although the social identity theory is a good way to understand human behavior, it does not portray human behavior accurately because sometimes, our personal identity is stronger than our group identity, and we develop a sense of individualism. Also, the in-group will not always be the ONLY factor affecting a person's thoughts and in-group favoritism (behavior). It can also be a result of the environment that interacts with the "self"… cultural expectations and social norms also play a big role in the way an individual behaves.

• Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behavior.

 A stereotype is defined as the social perception of an individual in terms of group-membership or physical attributes that are often exaggerated. It’s a generalization that is made of a group or somebody who belongs in a group, and the generalization can be either positive or negative, and it also affects the person who holds the stereotype.

Stereotype threats are threats that occur when one is in a situation where they might be judged. They feel that whatever they do may lead to the confirming of the stereotype… this is pressure to the individual. When the individual feels stress such as this, they actually perform at a lower or worse rate due to the emotional distress and pressure. When their performance at a certain task is undermined because of the pressure, the stereotype is confirmed by others that are present.

How does a stereotype form? A stereotype forms when people have a personal experience with a certain person or group, and also from gatekeepers (media, parents, other members in our culture). Personal experience with a person will be inevitably categorized, and then the experience will be generalized to the whole group that person is from. Gatekeepers help with the formation of stereotypes because the media and other gatekeepers spread these generalizations made.

Stereotypes are also a result of illusory correlation, or confirmation bias. An individual will find correlations between variables (when there is no correlation) in order to confirm a stereotype that was made of a person/group. Also, an individual is likely to ignore all facts/evidence that contradict the stereotype, and recognize all the evidence that supports it (confirmation bias).

4.2 Social and Cultural Norms

• Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies.

Humans learn by observing others… this is called the social learning theory. By observational learning, people watch a model's behavior and copy (imitate) their behavior. Sometimes, the model attempts to have a direct effect on the student, but most of the time models do not attempt to have direct effect and rather tend to influence an individual's behavior without intending to do so. When the model tries to have a direct effect on the individual, it is usually a teacher/student or parent/child relationship. When the model is not aiming to influence an individual's behavior and does so unknowingly, it is usually through media. The social learning theory requires four steps…

                1) Attention: the model must grab the attention of an individual

                2) Retention: model's behavior must stay with the individual even after the model leaves

                3) Motor reproduction: the individual must replicate the behavior

                4) Motivation: the individual must be motivated to demonstrate whatever they learned.

Motivation is affected by many factors such as: (the observer seeing the) repetition of the model's behavior, liking the model, the rewards or punishments the model receives after the action, and identification with the model (if the model is alike to them or not, in terms of gender and age or even profession).

Albert Bandura performed a study studying the social learning theory, as well as the significance of the theory when using same-sex models.  There were 36 boys and 36 girls, all ages 3-6 years old. They were divided into groups by aggression, which the parents contributed to by saying whether their child was aggressive or not. To see if children would imitate behavior, one group was shown a video where an adult showed aggression toward a bobo doll. A second group was shown a video of a model that was assembling toys for 10 minutes, and the control group was not shown a model at all. (Some girl children saw women models, boy children saw male models… this is a factor that affects the social learning theory… "Likeness to the model" One the other hand, some kids saw videos of opposite sex models). After being shown the video, the children were placed in a room with toys. Then, shortly after, they were taken to another room that closely resembled the room that their model was in, with the same bobo doll. As a result of the experiment, the social learning theory was demonstrated in the study - children in the group that were shown the aggression video acted the same way, beating, punching and hitting the bobo doll in a similar way that their models had. The children in the aggression group were significantly more aggressive than those in the other groups - both verbally AND physically. As for the same-sex model theory, girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression and boys physical aggression. (Boys who saw the women models beating the bobo doll in the video also said "girls shouldn't do that"… thus kids were more likely to imitate same-sex models). This experiment has low ecological validity because it was carried out in a lab. Also, the aggression of models in the videos were not all standardized, so the children may have all seen different levels of aggression… this would affect how they imitated the models.

A study was carried in Canada that also tested the social learning theory: children were found to be significantly more aggressive in a village two years after television had been introduced to the town. This study shows that there may have been a link with aggression and television (children imitating models they see on TV)… but there could have been other factors that affected the violence in children as well.

• Discuss the use of compliance techniques

Compliance is from the direct pressure to respond to a request (the direct pressure is not necessarily evident to the subject.) There are many compliance techniques, and of these, the most major techniques are: DITF, FITD and reciprocity.

 The door in the face technique is a technique where a large request is made at first. The first request is so large that it is already determined by the requester that it will be turned down. After the subject turns the large request down, the requester then asks a smaller request, which will seem much easier to fulfill and agree to, compared to the first request. The smaller request is actually the request that the requester wanted the subject to comply to, and because the subject feels guilty for turning down the first request, they are likely to agree to the second request. They tend to do this because they feel as if the requested has had to concede his former request to a smaller one.

The foot in the door technique is a technique when a small commitment or request is made to an individual. Once the individual complies or agrees to fulfill the commitment/request, a related request is then asked of the individual. The second request is usually a larger request, but it is likely that the individual will agree because people tend to want to be committed and consistent in their beliefs. Thus, this is an effective technique when trying to get an individual to commit to a large request - you simply have them agree to a smaller (but related) request first, so they have a sense of commitment/ develop a sense of consistency.

Lastly, the reciprocity principle is a principle that ensures that what you give to others will always be returned to you in some form. When people do nice things for you, you are more likely to feel a need or an urge to do something nice back for them. This is reciprocity, and is an effective technique for compliance because it is a social norm - treat others the same way that they treat us.

• Evaluate research on conformity to group norms.

Conformity is when people feel they have to adjust their own thoughts, beliefs or opinions in order to be in agreement with a certain person or a group. People tend to want to conform to group norms because they have a need to belong in a social setting. Because people want to "belong" and want to avoid cognitive dissonance, they willingly or unwillingly change their ideas about things to be in agreement with an in-group.

• Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture, groupthink, risky shift, minority influence).

 Culture and minority opinions are factors that influence how a person conforms. Culture is a large and impressive factor because the ideas that a person has because of the culture they are in controls their perception of reality. Some cultures are known to look at conformity as a positive attribute (such as Japan and east-Asian cultures) while Western cultures tend to frown upon conformity. This shows that the likelihood of an individual conforming to a group is directly affected by the culture the situation is set in. If you were in a culture that looks at conformity positively, you would be more likely to conform and "go with the flow", while if you were from a cultural background that treasures individualism, you would be less likely to conform.

Minority opinions can influence conformity within groups if they are CONSISTENT. Consistent minority opinions in a group show individuals that there ARE dissenting opinions and it the fact that the dissenting opinions are consistent shows that there is a commitment to an alternative view of things. Without minority opinions, a group's decision making process would be flawed. If there were no minority opinions, there would be groupthink within a group - where a group all agrees unanimously on a subject and alternative ideas are not suggested… thus the group is blinded by the optimism that their decisions and ideas will always be successful.

• Define the terms “culture” and “cultural norms”.

Culture can be defined as common rules that regulate interactions and behavior in a group, as well as a number of shared values and attitudes in the group. Culture is a dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behaviors. There is a deep culture and a surface culture. Surface culture often refers to the culture that you can see, such as; food, clothing, and language. Deep culture often refers to the beliefs and attitude that underpin cultural manifestations.

Cultural norms are behavior patterns that are typical to a specific culture. They are usually passed down generation by generation, through parents, peers, media and religious leaders.

• Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behavior

Individualist societies and collectivist societies:

Individualist societies tend to have loose ties between individuals… they are expected to be able to take care of themselves as well as their immediate families. On the other hand, collectivist societies integrate each individual upon birth with close communal relationships and people tend to be strongly bonded together. In a collectivist group, if an individual is not able to meet expectations of their group the results are sometimes severe (i.e. a shunning or being banned from certain luxuries that other members in the group/culture have access to) Individualist cultures tend to have a well-defined boundary between individuals and society, while collectivist cultures tend to have a sense of connectedness/connection within each member of that society/culture.

A second dimension is uncertainty v.s. avoidance. This tests a culture's tolerability for uncertainty and ambiguity. In some cultures, members of that culture are alright with uncertainties and ambiguities, and deal well with vague situations. On the other hand, other cultures' members feel uncomfortable when faced with ambiguous and vague situations. These uncertainty-avoiding cultures stabilize themselves by setting many laws, regulations and rules within their culture, and on a religious/philosophical level, believe in absolute Truth ("There can only be on Truth, and we have it")

• Using examples, explain emic and etic concepts

Understanding the role of culture in human behavior is essential in a multicultural world. Many of the founding theorists of psychology took a solely western view. They attempted to find universal behaviors – they were looking for rules of human behavior that could be applied to all cultures around the world. This is an ETIC approach to psychology. Etic approaches are taken within cross-cultural psychology where behavior is compared across specific cultures. For example, etic studies involve drawing on the notion of universal properties of cultures, which share common perceptual, cognitive, and emotional structures.
The emic approach to psychology looks at behaviors that are culturally specific. Emics have challenged psychologists to re-examine their ideas of truth with regard to culture. In most cases, truth might be relative, based on the culture in which one is raised. In that case, it is important for psychologists to recognize these cultural variations in order to best understand members of other cultural groups. For example, how “politeness” or “decorum” is defined varies depending on the culture that is being observed.