Sociocultural approach

Part of our self-concept comes from group membership, which shapes how we see and treat others.

Social categorisation, social identification, and social comparison.

Sorting people into in-groups ('us') and out-groups ('them').

Adopting the identity, norms and values of a group we belong to.

Comparing our group favourably with others to boost self-esteem.

Favouring our own group over others — a form of bias.

Even trivial group divisions trigger in-group favouritism.

Supported by minimal-group and real-world studies; explains prejudice and teamwork.

Lab studies can be artificial, and it underplays individual differences.

Bias — group membership tilts judgements towards 'us'.

Studying behaviour from outside a culture, using general categories to compare across cultures.

Etic = outside, to compare cultures; emic = inside, on the culture's terms.

Standardised measures applied the same way across cultures.

Applying one culture's measure everywhere as if it were neutral — a route to ethnocentrism.

It allows direct comparison across cultures and can reveal possible universals.

It can impose one culture's categories and miss local meaning.

By checking that measures mean the same thing in each culture (and adding emic depth).

Giving the same memory test in ten countries and comparing the scores.

Etic gives comparison; emic gives meaning — together they balance out.

Perspective — it takes the outsider's viewpoint.

We learn behaviour by observing and imitating others, especially role models.

Attention, Retention, Reproduction, Motivation (ARRM).

Learning to expect a reward by seeing someone else rewarded for a behaviour.

A person whose behaviour we observe and are likely to imitate, often high-status or similar to us.

When we identify with them — similar, admired or high-status people.

It adds mental steps (attention, memory, motivation) between stimulus and response.

A child copying a parent's phrases, or a teen imitating an admired influencer.

Explains language, aggression, gender roles and media effects, with observational evidence.

It can't fully predict who imitates and may underplay biology and choice.

Causality — observing a model can cause new behaviour.

Changing your behaviour or opinions to match those of a group.

Conforming to be accepted and avoid standing out, even when privately unsure.

Conforming because you think the group knows better, especially when unsure.

A larger group, a unanimous majority, and public responses.

Even one dissenting ally who breaks the unanimity.

Picking the same answer as the group even when you think it's wrong.

No — following sensible norms (queueing, safety) is useful; the concern is overriding good judgement.

Some classic tasks are artificial and conformity varies by culture and era.

Some cultures value fitting in more, so conformity levels differ.

Bias — group pressure can bend judgement away from independent thought.

Changing your behaviour in response to a direct request from another person.

Starting with a small request so a later, bigger request is more likely to be accepted.

Starting with a large request that's refused, so the smaller real request seems reasonable.

Getting agreement on a good deal, then revealing added costs; people often stick with it.

Giving something first so the person feels obliged to give back.

People want to act consistently with a commitment they've already made.

Compliance = a request; conformity = a group; obedience = an authority's order.

Demonstrated in many field and lab studies; explains sales, charity and marketing.

Effects vary by person/culture, some raise ethical concerns, and they can backfire if obvious.

Causality — the way a request is framed causes agreement.

The uncomfortable tension felt when beliefs and behaviour conflict, motivating us to reduce it.

Change the behaviour, change the belief, or add justifying thoughts.

Changing the belief to fit the action, because it's easier than undoing the action.

A small reward for acting against a belief causes more attitude change than a big one.

It gives an external justification, so there's less dissonance to resolve.

A smoker downplaying the risks instead of quitting.

Change — it is a key engine of attitude change.

Supported by many classic and modern experiments on attitude change.

Dissonance is an internal feeling that's hard to measure and varies by person and culture.

No — people often rationalise (change the belief) rather than change the behaviour.

A broad value that varies between cultures and can be used to compare them.

Individualism vs collectivism.

Personal goals, independence and standing out.

Group harmony, loyalty and duty.

No — they are averages; individuals within a culture vary widely.

By treating an average as a fixed trait of every individual (stereotyping).

They give a shared framework to compare cultures and predict differences.

They risk stereotyping, may use dated data, and ignore within-culture variation.

No — dimensions describe differences in values, not which is superior.

Perspective — culture is a lens that shapes what counts as normal.

Learning and absorbing the norms, values and behaviours of your own culture as you grow up.

Through observation/imitation, direct teaching, and social norms.

Enculturation = your own culture growing up; acculturation = adjusting to a new culture.

A child learning their culture's table manners by watching, being taught, and being praised.

Because enculturation is absorbed early and rewarded consistently.

Absorbed norms feel universal, so other cultures' ways can wrongly seem 'odd'.

Explains cultural differences in behaviour, with developmental and cross-cultural support.

Hard to measure as one process and to separate from biology; people also resist norms.

No — they can question, resist and reshape their culture's norms.

Change — behaviour changes gradually as culture is absorbed.

The psychological and cultural change that happens when people from one culture meet another.

Acculturation = adjusting to a new culture; enculturation = absorbing your own culture growing up.

Keeping your own culture and engaging with the new one — a balanced blend.

Giving up your own culture and fully adopting the new one.

Keeping your own culture and avoiding the new one.

Rejecting or being excluded from both cultures — belonging to neither.

Integration = best; marginalisation = worst.

The stress of adapting to a new culture — language barriers, discrimination, lost support.

No — a hostile host society can push people towards separation or marginalisation.

Change — contact with a new culture reshapes identity and behaviour over time.

Studying behaviour from within a culture, on its own terms and meanings.

Emic = inside, on the culture's terms; etic = outside, to compare cultures.

In-depth methods — interviews, case studies, immersion.

It uses the culture's own concepts rather than imposing outside standards.

Rich, context-sensitive understanding of what a behaviour means to people.

Findings are hard to generalise or compare across cultures.

Emic gives depth/meaning; etic allows comparison — together they balance out.

Living alongside a community to understand what their mourning rituals mean to them.

Perspective — it takes the insider's viewpoint.

No — it is often time-consuming and immersive.