INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (BPCC 132)

GUESS PAPER – BPCC 132

Course Code: BPCC 132

Total Marks: 100

NOTE: All questions are compulsory.

Answer the following descriptive category questions in about 500 words each. Each
question carries 20 marks. 2 x 20=40

1. Discuss the various features related to conformity, compliance and obedience. (20)

2. Explain the concept, types and components of group. Discuss the various group
processes.
(10 +10)

Assignment Two

Answer the following short category questions in about 100 words each. Each question carries 5
marks.
6 x 5 = 30

3. Discuss the relationship of social psychology to the other Discipline of social

sciences. (5)

4. Describe the sources of errors in social cognition. (5)

5. Discuss the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. (5)

6. Discuss the factors influencing pro- social behavior. (5)

7. Explain the meaning and the agents of acculturation. (5)

8. Describe the internal factors affecting attraction. (5)

 PART II: Tutorial (1x30= 30)

Q. Prepare an interview schedule to examine the role of digital media towards the change in
attitude and behavior of school students (e.g. it may be related to the impact of digital media
on the students’ thinking/nature/efficiency/performance and so on). Collect your responses
through interview survey on the following groups:
1. Parents
2. School Teachers

On basis of the responses received, you have to write the activity in the following format:

1. You will prepare a handwritten file (of A4 sheets) with a brief introduction of thetopic
(as given) and a discussion on the responses and the trends received through
interviewing the participants. You have to conclude the survey on basis of the facts
and findings.
2. You need to enclose the filled in questionnaire (raw data) also in the file.
3. On basis of the selected topic, you need to prepare atleast 10-15 questions for
theinterview schedule.
4. A sample size of minimum 20 participants (10 parents whose children are
attendingschools and 10 school teachers) need to be included for the survey.
5. The file/ notebook will include the following subsections:
i) Introduction (of about 200 words)
ii) Methodology (which will include the details about the sample size and the
method of data collection in about 150 words)
iii) Findings (of about 200 words)
iv) Conclusion and Suggestion (of about 150 words)
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIGUESONS GUIDE (2021-22)

BPCC-132: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some
of the Questions given in the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are
prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Authors for the help and guidance of the student to
get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions given the Assignments. We do not
claim 100% accuracy of these sample answers as these are based on the knowledge and
capability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers may be seen as the Guide/Help for
the reference to prepare the answers of the Questions given in the assignment. As these
solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so the chances of error
or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every
care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/Solutions. Please consult
your own Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer and for up-to-date and
exact information, data and solution. Student should must read and refer the official
study material provided by the university.

PART I – One
Answer the following descriptive category questions in about 500 words each.
Each question carries 20 marks.
Q1. Discuss the various features related to conformity, compliance and
obedience.
Ans. Conformity: Solomon Asch conducted several experiments in the 1950s to
determine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In
one study, a group of participants was shown a series of printed line segments of
different lengths: a, b, and c ([link]). Participants were then shown a fourth line
segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or
c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.
Each group of participants had only one true, naïve subject. The remaining members of
the group were confederates of the researcher. A confederate is a person who is aware
of the experiment and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate
social situations as part of the research design, and the true, naïve participants believe
that confederates are, like them, uninformed participants in the experiment. In Asch’s
study, the confederates identified a line segment that was obviously shorter than the
target line—a wrong answer. The naïve participant then had to identify aloud the line
segment that best matched the target line segment.
How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates’ response?
That is, how often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant
gave the wrong answer? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group
pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. Conformity is the change in a
person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group.
Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors would increase or decrease
someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?
The Asch effect is the influence of the group majority on an individual’s judgment.
What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that
the size of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively
private nature of responses are key influences on conformity.
• The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the
more likely an individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point
where adding more members does not increase conformity. In Asch’s study,
conformity increased with the number of people in the majority—up to seven
individuals. At numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased
slightly (Asch, 1955).

1
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
• The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter,
conformity rates drop to near zero (Asch, 1955).
• The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made
publicly (in front of others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses
are made privately (e.g., writing down the response), conformity is less likely
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when
they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are
not coerced by others ([link]). The Asch effect can be easily seen in children when they
have to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the
children would rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children
vote, the rest will comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority
might vote differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When
someone’s vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as
compliance. Compliance can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a
request or demand, even if you do not agree with the request. In Asch’s studies, the
participants complied by giving the wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the
obvious wrong answers were correct. Now that you have learned about the Asch line
experiments, why do you think the participants conformed? The correct answer to the
line segment question was obvious, and it was an easy task. Researchers have
categorized the motivation to conform into two types: normative social influence and
informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
In normative social influence, people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good,
and to be accepted by the group. However, with informational social influence, people
conform because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information,
particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was
operating in the Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was
unambiguous, participants did not need to rely on the group for information. Instead,
participants complied to fit in and avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social
influence.
An example of informational social influence may be what to do in an emergency
situation. Imagine that you are in a movie theater watching a film and what seems to be
smoke comes in the theater from under the emergency exit door. You are not certain
that it is smoke—it might be a special effect for the movie, such as a fog machine. When
you are uncertain you will tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If other
people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the same. However, if
others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put and continue watching the movie.
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment: Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on
our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to
authority. Obedience is the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand
by an authority figure. People often comply with the request because they are
concerned about a consequence if they do not comply. To demonstrate this
phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology experiment.
Stanley Milgram was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the
trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he
committed was that he was “just following orders.” Milgram (1963) wanted to test the
validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for
his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were
participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told
that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test
items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered
electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to
shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item—that the shock would
help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks,
which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did
not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually
receive shocks.

2
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants
obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help,
begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet,
when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the
participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the
learner became unresponsive.
Several variations of the original Milgram experiment were conducted to test the
boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed,
participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example,
when the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of
participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in
the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the
teachers’ and learners’ hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%.
When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These
variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased,
obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so
did obedience.
This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure
orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical?
In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire
regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior
midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously
stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority,
going against their own beliefs.
Groupthink: When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social
influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group
conformity is groupthink. Groupthink is the modification of the opinions of members of a
group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group
situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the
group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do.
Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse
opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.
There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:
• perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong
• believing the group is morally correct
• self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid
disrupting the group consensus
• the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions
• the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views
• perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members
• holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with
differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)
Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several
strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions,
voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group
members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the
costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972;
Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).
Group Polarization: Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group
polarization. Group polarization (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an
original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group
initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger
endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a
viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization
explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals.

3
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party
are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them.
A more everyday example is a group’s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does
your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If
your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?
Social Facilitation: Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we
have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. Social
facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching
than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people
are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which
having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled
basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by
a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym ([link]). However, there are
instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if
an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may
actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy
tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when
performing in front of others, depending on the task. Social Loafing: Another way in
which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. Social loafing is the
exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs
when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus,
group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau & Williams, 1993). Essentially
individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because
each individual’s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to
perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from
the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert
little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard
and who didn’t.
As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group
project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow
group members weren’t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns
a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn’t know how much
effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more
conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student
work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999).
Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult
(Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under
pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual
performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if
your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do
well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979).
This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose
(Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that
their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams,
1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new
professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals’ efforts
should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the
task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in
this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals’ efforts should be evaluated,
but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince
your professor to only assign easy projects.

Q2. Explain the concept, types and components of group. Discuss the various
group processes.
Ans. A group is a collection of individuals who interact with each other such that one
person’s actions have an impact on the others. In other words, a group is defined as two
or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve
particular objectives.

4
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Types of Groups: Groups may be classified according to many dimensions, including
function, the degree of personal involvement and degree of organization.
Types of Groups are;
• Formal Group.
• Informal Group.
• Managed Group.
• Process Group.
• Semi-Formal Groups.
• Goal Group.
• Learning Group.
• Problem-Solving Group
• Friendship Group.
• Interest Group.
Let’s look at the
Formal Groups
• Formal groups are created to achieve specific organizational objectives. Usually,
they are concerned with the coordination of work activities.
• People are brought together based on different roles within the structure of the
organization. The nature of the task to be undertaken is a predominant feature of
the formal groups.
• Goals are identified by management and short and rules relationships and norms
of behavior established. Formal groups chain to be related to permanent
although there may be changes in actual membership.
• However temporary formal groups may also be created by management, for
example, the use of project teams in a matrix organization.
Informal Groups
• Within the formal structure of the organization, there will always be an informal
structure.
• The formal structure of the organization and system of role relationship, rule,
and procedures, will be augmented by interpretation and development at the
informal level.
• Informal groups are based more on personal relationships and agreement of
group’s members than on defined role relationships. They serve to Satisfy
psychological and social needs not related necessarily to the tasks to be
undertaken.
• Groups may devise ways of attempting to satisfy members’ affiliations and other
social motivations that are lacing in the work situation, especially in industrial
organizations.
Managed Group
• Groups may be formed under a named manager, even though they may not
necessarily work together with a great deal. The main thing they have in
common, at least the manager and perhaps a similar type of work.
Process Group
• The process group acts together to enact a process, going through a relatively
fixed set of instructions. The classic environment is a manufacturing production
line, where every movement is prescribed.
• There may either be little interaction within process groups or else it’ is largely
prescribed, for example where one person hands something over to another.
Semi-Formal Groups
• Many groups act with less formality, in particular where power is distributed
across the group, forcing a more collaborative approach that includes-
negotiation rather than command and control.
• Families, communities and tribal groups often act as semi-formal ways as they
both have nominal leaders yet members can have a high degree of autonomy.

5
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Goal Group
• The goal group acts together to achieve a shared objective or desired outcome.
Unlike the process groups, there is no clear instruction on how they should
achieve this, although they may use some processes and methods along the way.
• As there is no detailed instruction, the members of the goal group need to bring
more intelligence, knowledge, and experience to the task.
Learning Group
• The learning group comes together to increase their net knowledge. They may
act collaboratively with discussion and exploration, or they may be a taught
class, with a teacher and a syllabus.
Problem-Solving Group
• Problem-solving groups come together to address issues that have arisen. They
have a common purpose in understanding and resolving their issue, although
their different perspectives can lead to particular disagreements.
• Problem-solving may range along a spectrum from highly logical and
deterministic, to uncertain and dynamic situations there creativity and instinct
may be better ways of resolving the situation.
Friendship Group
• Groups often develop because individual members have one or more common
characteristics. We call these formations of friendship groups.
• Social alliances, which frequently extend outside the work situation, can be
based on similar age or ethnic heritage, support for Kolkata Knight Riders
cricket, or the holding of similar political views, to name just a few such
characteristics.
Interest Group
• People who may or may not be aligned into a common command or task groups
may affiliate to attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. This is
an interest group.
• Employees who band together to have their vacation schedules altered, to
support a peer who has been fired, or to seek improved working conditions
represent the formation of a united body to further their common interest.
Group process: Group process refers to how an organization’s members work together
to get things done. Typically, organizations spend a great deal of time and energy
setting and striving to reach goals but give little consideration to what is happening
between and to the group’s greatest resource – it’s members. While working hard to
achieve results, it is critical that members’ needs be addressed. Membership in an
organization is as much an opportunity to develop self-confidence, refine skills and
make friends as it is to support a cause, fundraise or educate the campus community.
All of these can be done simultaneously, but most likely will not just happen on their
own. Effective organizations take a close look at how members work together, which
roles they fill and whether members are contributing equally. Through group process,
observation and analysis can help identify problems early, thus alleviating the need for
major overhaul as the year progresses. Your vantage point as a group member provides
a great opportunity to regularly observe how things are going. Depending on the
frequency of meetings and an understanding of what to look for, you can be
instrumental in ensuring group and individual success. Process observation requires
patience and the ability to focus on everyone in the group. Paying attention to these
questions and roles can help you to better understand how the group is affecting its
members and vice versa. Elements of an organization that typically influence group
proceedings include communication, participation, decision making and organizational
roles. When observing these specific areas you will likely see several things happening
simultaneously. This is to be expected, but it can also be rather confusing. Initially, you
may want to isolate a single aspect of the group. As you become more adept at
observation you can gradually increase your areas of focus.

6
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Assignment Two
Answer the following short category questions in about 100 words each. Each
question carries 5 marks.
Q3. Discuss the relationship of social psychology to the other Discipline of
social sciences.
Ans. Relationship of Social Psychology with Sociology and Anthropology Social
psychology is poised at the crossroads of a number of related disciplines and sub-
disciplines. In dealing, for example, with groups, social and cultural norms, social
representations, and language and intergroup behaviour, social psychology has
links with sociology and social anthropology. Social Psychology and Sociology
Sociology is the study of how social and cultural forces influence behavior. It
focuses on how groups, organisations, social categories and societies are organised,
how they function and how they change. Herein, the unit of analysis (i.e. the focus
of research and theory) is the group as a whole rather than the individual people
who compose the group; in contrast, social psychology focuses on the individual as
the unit of analysis. For - Sociologists might compare the status of health in
instance people from different socio-economic backgrounds, or the murder rate in
states with different laws (capital punishment versus no capital punishment).
Whereas, social psychologists might examine whether specific attitudes and beliefs
are associated with better health, or whether individuals are more aggressive under
certain social conditions.
Another important difference between these two disciplines is the preferred
research methodologies. Sociologists typically study existing groups and measure
their relevant characteristics. Social psychologists typically manipulate variables in
experimental conditions. However, some forms of sociology (e.g. microsociology,
psychological sociology, sociological psychology) are closely related to social
psychology (Delamater, 2003). There is, according to Farr (1996), a sociological
form of social psychology that has its origins in the symbolic interactionism of G. H.
Mead (1934) and Herbert Blumer (1969). Just as the boundary between social and
individual psychology has been approached from both sides, so has the boundary
between social psychology and sociology. From the sociological side, for example,
Karl Marx's theory of cultural history and social change has been extended to
incorporate a consideration of the role of individual psychology (Billig, 1976). From
the social psychological side, intergroup perspectives on group and individual
behaviour draw on sociological variables and concepts (Hogg 8c Abrams, 1988).
Indeed, many sociologists and social psychologists share the same training and
publish in the same journals. When these two fields interact, the result can be a
more complete understanding of important issues. For example - interdisciplinary
research on stereotyping and prejudice has examined dynamic roles of both societal
and immediate factors, such as how particular social systems or institutional norms
and beliefs affect individuals' attitudes and behaviour (Eagly and Woods, 2012; Levy
et al., 2010). Social Psychology and Anthropology Anthropology takes a broad
approach to social phenomenon, concentrating on culture, with minor emphasis on
the individual. It is the study of past and present cultures, particularly how cultural
features influence behavior. Hence, the focus is on shared values, beliefs and
practices of a group of people, which are passed down from one general to the
others. Social psychology also deals with many of the same phenomena but seeks to
explain how individual human interaction and human cognition influence 'culture'
and, in turn, are influenced by culture. anthropologists often compare features of
For instance different societies (e.g., their customs and institutions) to understand a
particular outcome (e.g., divorce rates or life expectancy). Social psychologists may
also study similar outcomes but differences exist in terms of theoretical approaches
(cultures vs. individuals) and research methods (investigation of existing records
and materials vs. experiments).
However, the two fields have a strong potential for complementing each other.
Knowledge of psychology may help an anthropologist in understanding the root
causes of human behaviour in different cultures. On the other hand, anthropological
studies help the psychologists in calculating the influence of cultural environment of

7
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
human behaviour. In modern times, the various anthropological studies have
generated important implications for the field of psychology. By studying different
primitive cultures, anthropologists have shown how human behaviour differs in
different cultural environments. Every culture has its special method of social
control, which has an important influence on the personality of its members.
References Breckler, S. J., Olson, J., psychology alive. Cengage Learning. &
Wiggins, E. (2005). Social • Hogg, M. &Vaughan, G.M. (2008).Social Psychology.
Prentice Hall. • Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H.R.
(2008).Social Psychology. New York: Houghton Miffin.
Q4. Describe the sources of errors in social cognition.
Ans. A few common such biases include the fundamental attribution error, the self-
serving bias, the actor-observer bias, and the just-world hypothesis.
Fundamental Attribution Error: According to social psychologists, people tend to
overemphasize internal factors as explanations for the behavior of other people and
do the opposite when explaining our own behavior. That is to say, we tend to
assume that the behavior of another person is due to a trait of that person,
underestimating the role of context. For example, when a student fails to turn in his
or her homework, a teacher may assume the student is lazy rather than attributing
the behavior to external contextual factors such as having a particularly busy
schedule that week. This perspective is called the fundamental attribution error and
may result from our attempt to simplify the processing of complex information.
The fundamental attribution error is so powerful that people often overlook even
obvious situational influences on behavior. This can contribute to prejudice and
stereotyping and lead to conflict.
Self-Serving Bias: Self-serving bias is the tendency of individuals to make internal
attributions when their actions have a positive outcome but external attributions
when their actions have a negative outcome. This bias lets us continue to see
ourselves in a favorable light and protects our self-esteem; we take credit for our
successes and pin our failures on other factors. For example, if an individual gets
promoted, he may attribute it to his performance; if he fails to get the promotion, he
may attribute it to his supervisor possibly having a grudge against him.
Actor-Observer Bias: The actor-observer bias explains the phenomenon of
attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors while attributing our own
behavior to external or situational forces, also known as the fundamental attribution
error (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi &
Nisbett, 1998). When we are actors of behavior, we have more information about
the situation to help us form an explanation, but when we are merely observers, we
have less information; therefore, we tend to default to the assumption that others’
actions are based on internal factors rather than the situation.
Just-World Hypothesis: One consequence of Westerners’ tendency to provide
internal explanations for others’ behavior is victim-blaming (Jost & Major, 2001).
When bad things happen to people, others tend to assume that those people
somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common view in the United States is
the just-world hypothesis, which is the belief that people get the outcomes they
deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a
fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes and
bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost &
Major, 2001). This worldview allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that
we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001).
Cultural Factors: Research shows that culture affects how people make
attributions. Individualist cultures value personal goals and independence.
Collectivist cultures see individuals as members of a group and tend to value
conformity, mutual support, and interdependence. People from individualist
cultures are more inclined to make the fundamental attribution error and
demonstrate self-serving bias than people from collectivist cultures. This is thought
to be because individualists tend to attribute behavior to internal factors (the
individual), while collectivists tend to attribute behavior to external factors (the
group and world).

8
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Q5. Discuss the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination.
Ans. The terms stereotype, prejudice, discrimination, and racism are often used
interchangeably in everyday conversation. Stereotypes are oversimplified
generalizations about groups of people. Stereotypes can be based on race, ethnicity,
age, gender, sexual orientation—almost any characteristic. They may be positive
(usually about one’s own group, such as when women suggest they are less likely to
complain about physical pain) but are often negative (usually toward other groups, such
as when members of a dominant racial group suggest that a subordinate racial group is
stupid or lazy). In either case, the stereotype is a generalization that doesn’t take
individual differences into account.
Prejudice and Racism: Prejudice refers to the beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and attitudes
someone holds about a group. A prejudice is not based on experience; instead, it is a
prejudgment, originating outside actual experience. A 1970 documentary called Eye of
the Storm illustrates the way in which prejudice develops, by showing how defining one
category of people as superior (children with blue eyes) results in prejudice against
people who are not part of the favored category.
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a stronger type of prejudice
used to justify the belief that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to
others; it is also a set of practices used by a racial majority to disadvantage a racial
minority. The Ku Klux Klan is an example of a racist organization; its members’ belief in
white supremacy has encouraged over a century of hate crime and hate speech.
Institutional racism refers to the way in which racism is embedded in the fabric of
society. For example, the disproportionate number of black men arrested, charged, and
convicted of crimes may reflect racial profiling, a form of institutional racism.
Colorism is another kind of prejudice, in which someone believes one type of skin tone is
superior or inferior to another within a racial group. Studies suggest that darker
skinned African Americans experience more discrimination than lighter skinned African
Americans (Herring, Keith, and Horton 2004; Klonoff and Landrine 2000). For example,
if a white employer believes a black employee with a darker skin tone is less capable
than a black employer with lighter skin tone, that is colorism. At least one study
suggested the colorism affected racial socialization, with darker-skinned black male
adolescents receiving more warnings about the danger of interacting with members of
other racial groups than did lighter-skinned black male adolescents (Landor et al. 2013).
Discrimination: While prejudice refers to biased thinking, discrimination consists of
actions against a group of people. Discrimination can be based on age, religion, health,
and other indicators; race-based laws against discrimination strive to address this set of
social problems.
Discrimination based on race or ethnicity can take many forms, from unfair housing
practices to biased hiring systems. Overt discrimination has long been part of U.S.
history. In the late nineteenth century, it was not uncommon for business owners to
hang signs that read, “Help Wanted: No Irish Need Apply.” And southern Jim Crow
laws, with their “Whites Only” signs, exemplified overt discrimination that is not
tolerated today.
However, we cannot erase discrimination from our culture just by enacting laws to
abolish it. Even if a magic pill managed to eradicate racism from each individual’s
psyche, society itself would maintain it. Sociologist Émile Durkheim calls racism a social
fact, meaning that it does not require the action of individuals to continue. The reasons
for this are complex and relate to the educational, criminal, economic, and political
systems that exist in our society.
For example, when a newspaper identifies by race individuals accused of a crime, it may
enhance stereotypes of a certain minority. Another example of racist practices is racial
steering, in which real estate agents direct prospective homeowners toward or away
from certain neighborhoods based on their race. Racist attitudes and beliefs are often
more insidious and harder to pin down than specific racist practices.
Prejudice and discrimination can overlap and intersect in many ways. To illustrate, here
are four examples of how prejudice and discrimination can occur. Unprejudiced
nondiscriminators are openminded, tolerant, and accepting individuals. Unprejudiced
discriminators might be those who unthinkingly practice sexism in their workplace by

9
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
not considering females for certain positions that have traditionally been held by men.
Prejudiced nondiscriminators are those who hold racist beliefs but don’t act on them,
such as a racist store owner who serves minority customers. Prejudiced discriminators
include those who actively make disparaging remarks about others or who perpetuate
hate crimes.
Discrimination also manifests in different ways. The scenarios above are examples of
individual discrimination, but other types exist. Institutional discrimination occurs when
a societal system has developed with embedded disenfranchisement of a group, such as
the U.S. military’s historical nonacceptance of minority sexualities (the “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policy reflected this norm).
Institutional discrimination can also include the promotion of a group’s status, such in
the case of white privilege, which is the benefits people receive simply by being part of
the dominant group. While most white people are willing to admit that nonwhite people
live with a set of disadvantages due to the color of their skin, very few are willing to
acknowledge the benefits they receive.

Q6. Discuss the factors influencing pro- social behavior.

Ans. Social and situational factors that can influence prosocial behaviors include the
interpretation of others' needs, the relationship to others, the reciprocal altruism, the
number of bystanders, the normative pressure to help, and the evaluation of the cost to
help (Batson, 1998). Evolutionally, biological relatedness and group selection are also
possible factors explaining the prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998). People
are more likely to help genetically related individuals, which increases the likelihood of
passing the same genes carried by the individuals. In addition, prosocial behaviors
among group members may promote the survival of the group. Biological factors also
play a role in prosocial behaviors. Brain areas involved in emotional systems such as
amygdala and frontal cortex and the level of opioids in brain are related to prosocial
behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Additionally, as is the case with PA, behavioral
genetic studies have shown that individual differences in prosocial behaviors are
attributed to genetic, shared environment, and non-shared environmental factors
(Scourfield et al., 2004; Knafo and Plomin, 2006).
Prosocial behaviors have been linked to PA. Higher levels of PA lead to more sharing
behaviors in children (Lennon and Eisenberg, 1987). Prosocial attitudes and behaviors
in older adults predict their PA 3 years later after controlling for demographic
characteristics (Kahana et al., 2013). The association between prosocial behaviors and
PA might be mediated by the sense of self-efficacy. Prosocial behaviors could enable
people to have a more positive view of themselves and enhance their selfefficacy, thus
fostering PA (Fazio, 2009). PA, in turn, may increase people's sense of self-efficacy by
yielding an optimistic view of their own abilities and resources to help people and then
act out in a more prosocial manner (Cialdini et al., 1982). Although previous studies
have focused on the link between prosocial behaviors and PA, relatively little is known
about the genetic and environmental factors that underlie the association. An exception
is the finding that the association between one aspect of prosocial behaviors, helping,
and PA in early childhood is explained by both shared and non-shared environmental
factors (Volbrecht et al., 2007). However, prosocial behaviors encompass a constellation
of behaviors beyond helping, thus highlighting the need for research using a more
comprehensive measure of prosociability which can provide a fuller understanding of
the association between the two domains.

10
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

11
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Q7. Explain the meaning and the agents of acculturation.

Ans. The initial interest in acculturation grew out of a concern for the effects of
European domination of colonial and indigenous peoples. Later, it focused on how
immigrants (both voluntary and involuntary) changed following their entry and
settlement into receiving societies. More recently, much of the work has been involved

12
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
with how ethnocultural groups relate to each other, and to change, as a result of their
attempts to live together in culturally plural societies. Nowadays, all three foci are
important as globalization results in ever larger trading and political relations.
Indigenous national populations experience neocolonization; new waves of immigrants,
sojourners, and refugees flow from these economic and political changes; and large
ethnocultural populations become established in most countries.
Early views about the nature of acculturation are a useful foundation for contemporary
discussion. Two formulations in particular have been widely quoted. The first, from
Redfield and colleagues in a 1936 article, is as follows:
Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals
having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent
changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups. … Under this
definition, acculturation is to be distinguished from culture change, of which it is but
one aspect, and assimilation, which is at times a phase of acculturation.
In another formulation, the Social Science Research Council in 1954 defined
acculturation as culture change that is initiated by the conjunction of two or more
autonomous cultural systems. Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct
cultural transmission; it may be derived from non-cultural causes, such as ecological or
demographic modification induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with
internal adjustments following upon the acceptance of alien traits or patterns; or it may
be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life.
In the first formulation, acculturation is seen as one aspect of the broader concept of
culture change (that which results from intercultural contact), is considered to generate
change in “either or both groups,” and is distinguished from assimilation (which may be
“at times a phase”). These are important distinctions for psychological work and are
pursued later in this article. In the second definition, a few extra features are added,
including change that is indirect (not cultural but rather “ecological”), is delayed
(internal adjustments, presumably of both a cultural and a psychological character, take
time), and can be “reactive” (i.e., rejecting the cultural influence and changing toward a
more “traditional” way of life rather than inevitably toward greater similarity with the
dominant culture).
In 1967, Graves introduced the concept of psychological acculturation, which refers to
changes in an individual who is a participant in a culture contact situation, being
influenced both by the external culture and by the changing culture of which the
individual is a member. There are two reasons for keeping these two levels distinct. The
first is that in cross-cultural psychology, we view individual human behavior as
interacting with the cultural context within which it occurs; hence, separate conceptions
and measurements are required at the two levels. The second is that not every
individual enters into, and participates in, a culture in the same way, nor does every
individual change in the same way; there are vast individual differences in psychological
acculturation, even among individuals who live in the same acculturative arena.
A framework that outlines and links cultural and psychological acculturation and
identifies the two (or more) groups in contact is presented in Fig. 1. This framework
serves as a map of those phenomena that the author believes need to be conceptualized
and measured during acculturation research. At the cultural level (on the left of the
figure), we need to understand key features of the two original cultural groups (A and B)
prior to their major contact, the nature of their contact relationships, and the resulting
dynamic cultural changes in both groups, and in the emergent ethnocultural groups,
during the process of acculturation. The gathering of this information requires extensive
ethnographic, community-level work. These changes can be minor or substantial and
can range from being easily accomplished to being a source of major cultural disruption.
At the individual level (on the right of the figure), we need to consider the psychological
changes that individuals in all groups undergo and their eventual adaptation to their
new situations. Identifying these changes requires sampling a population and studying
individuals who are variably involved in the process of acculturation. These changes can
be a set of rather easily accomplished behavioral shifts (e.g., in ways of speaking,
dressing, or eating; in one's cultural identity), or they can be more problematic,
producing acculturative stress as manifested by uncertainty, anxiety, and depression.

13
Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060
Adaptations can be primarily internal or psychological (e.g., sense of well-being or self-
esteem) or sociocultural, linking the individual to others in the new society as
manifested, for example, in competence in the activities of daily intercultural living.

Q8. Describe the internal factors affecting

attraction. Ans.

14