Integrating Cross-Cultural and Social Psychology

1

• Integrating Cross-Cultural and Social Psychology

2

• What are the key differences between the work
  done by Social Psychologists and Sociologists?
• Both examine specific factors that contribute to
  behavioral and group phenomena.

3

• It could be argued that sociology is largely a
  qualitative field of study (observation, focus
  groups, interviews), while social psych is mostly
  quantitative (applied experiments with
  statistical analysis).
• But the real difference may much more subtle yet
  highly significant.
• We can attempt to draw distinction on the nature
  of the theoretical questions posed, but we would
  just be splitting hairs.
• In fact, theres sharing theoretically
  Sociologists cite Social Psychology theories and
  vise versa.

4

• The major difference is to be found in go to
  research methods.
• Experiments continued to be the gold standard
  for Social Psychologists.
• According to psychologist Gordon Allport, social
  psychology is a discipline that uses scientific
  methods (experiments) "to understand and explain
  how the thought, feeling and behavior of
  individuals are influenced by the actual,
  imagined or implied presence of other human
  beings" (1985).

5

• Most sociologists employ non-experimental methods
  to look at social behavior and influences at a
  very broad-based level. Sociologists are
  interested in the institutions and cultures that
  influence how people behave.
• Psychologists instead focus on situational
  variables that affect social behavior.
• Hence, while social psychology and sociology both
  study similar topics, they are looking at these
  topics from different perspectives and using
  different methods.

6
What About Cross-Cultural Psychology?

• Cross-Cultural psychology can be the link, not
  just with sociology but with social science
  generally.
• My own contention is that cross-cultural
  psychology can act as a culture broker to help
  bring social psychology in contact with social
  science and the psychologies of other societies.

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11

• North American social psychology and Michael
  Doonesbury have much in common they are white,
  middle class, educated, idealistic (but
  practical), likable, interesting. They are also
  naive, culturally pristine, politically
  ineffectual, and out of touch with social
  processes that are bigger than themselves.
• They seem to inhabit a charmed world that only
  occasionally intersects with the many other
  worlds on this planet. Their responses to these
  intersections, rare as they may be, are
  predictably disconcerting.

12
Research Demonstrations

• My own early work support the need for
  cross-cultural studies with ethnic subgroups as
  an effective way of challenging the assumed
  universality of social psychology theories.
• In a study published in 1977 we demonstrated that
  generally accepted casual attributions theories
  are valid only for mainstream American
  populations, but fall apart when applied to
  ethnic minority populations.
• But this study was not a true experiment and
  published in the J Cross-Cultural Psychology, not
  a top tier journal at the time.

13
In Search of the Right Study

• What we needed was a study that addressed
  cultural concerns while employing traditional
  experimental methodology.
• The brainchild was reactions to praise and
  criticism as a function of ethnic background
  (culture) and locus of control (personality).
• Previous research had examined nonverbal
  feedback such as the illumination of the words
  right or wrong.
• We wanted to employ verbal feedback in an
  experimental setting.

14

• Previous research dealing with reactions to
  positive versus negative feedback had virtually
  ignored socio-cultural factors and not fully
  considered the interactive effects of personality
  constructs such as locus of control.
• Our study was designed to investigate reactions
  to praise and criticism among members of two
  ethnic groups who were either internal or
  externa in their perceptions of locus of
  control.

15
Method

• Subjects were recruited to take part in a
  Problem Solving experiment.
• Subjects first completed the locus of control
  scale (Rotter, 1966), a short personality test
  that may be related to performance on the problem
  solving task,
• On a large table located on the other side of the
  experimental room were various games, dice, and
  playing cards creating the distinct impression
  that we were investigating different forms of
  problem solving.

16
Method (cont.)

• Once the subjects completed the locus of control
  scale, the experimenter consulted his notes and
  informed all subjects that they had been assigned
  to work on the wooden block puzzle.
• Tested individually, subjects were shown a
  completed puzzle along with one that was apart.
• They were told that all the pieces were there to
  put together the puzzle.
• Subjects were given exactly two minutes to work
  on the puzzle.
• Pilot-testing had shown that the puzzle could not
  be completed within the allotted time.

17
Method (cont.)

• Subjects were stopped after two minutes and told
  that our study was not about completing the
  puzzle, but about the problem solving strategies
  that were being used.
• After pausing and looking at notes he had been
  taking while the subject was working on the
  puzzle, the Experimenter said, Ive been taking
  notes and can let you know how you did, if you
  like.
• All subjects wanted the feedback.
• Based on random assignment, subjects were given
  one of the following two feedback conditions.

18
Praise

• You did very well. You demonstrated a great
  deal of insight. Your problem-solving strategies
  reflect a great deal of complexity in your
  thinking. You did very well.

19
Criticism

• You didnt do very well. You demonstrated very
  little insight. Your problem-solving strategies
  reflect very little complexity in your thinking.
  You didnt do very well.

20
Dependent Measure

• From the subjects perspective, the Study ended
  with the feedback, but we needed to collect data
  on their reactions.
• Using the Oh, by the way method, the
  Experimenter handed the subjects a copy of a
  Psychology Experiment Evaluation Form just as
  they attempted to get up from the chair.
• Subjects were asked to complete the form in an
  adjacent room and to turn it to the Psychology
  Department office.

21

• Upon turning the completed form, subjects were
  given an envelope containing a letter explaining
  the true purpose of the experiment.
• The debriefing materials made it absolutely clear
  to the subjects that the feedback they received
  was completely arbitrary and not reflective of
  their true performance and capabilities.

22

• What did we find?

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)