201154278521 - PSYCHOLOGY 166AC Professor Kaiping Peng...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PSYCHOLOGY 166AC Professor Kaiping Peng 02/22/11 Lecture 11 ASUC Lecture Notes Online is the only authorized note-taking service at UC Berkeley. Do not share, copy or illegally distribute (electronically or otherwise) these notes. Our student-run program depends on your individual subscription for its continued existence. These notes are copyrighted by the University of California and are for your personal use only. D O N O T C O P Y Sharing or copying these notes is illegal and could end note taking for this course. )ANNOUNCEMENTS We will provide you with an online Review Sheet to prepare you for the exam; it will tell you what you should know. We will also have a review session where you can bring your questions for us to answer to help you prepare. LECTURE Cultural Identity and Values We talked about cultural identity and values, and how Americans are very individualistic and the Chinese are very collectivist. Yet the people in the US have a strong sense of solidarity with each other, even though they are individualists. This may seem like a contradiction but it is not. Yuki has argued for a distinction between category based identity that is characteristic of Westerners and relationally based identity that is more characteristic of East Asians. So we have 2 kinds of identity. People who are very collectivist tend to have a strong differentiation between ingroup and outgroup; people who are very individualist have a strong sense of bounded identity and view everyone else as the outgroup. Psychologists speak of the group serving attribution paradigm where a subject reads a story about someone’s behavior who is either in their ingroup or outgroup. How do they explain what happened? The Ultimate Attribution Error is the principle that we tend to explain the behavior of an outgroup member in terms of their identity in the outgroup and stereotypes about the outgroup and we tend to discount individual features or traits of the person. So if we see someone fall down while getting off of an airplane, do we say that the person is clumsy and members of their group are clumsy or do we say the situation caused it? The Self, Friend or Enemy Another paradigm distinguishes the traits of ourselves, a friend, or an enemy. People are given positive, negative or neutral traits. They are asked how much a given behavior is caused by a trait in the person and how much is it caused by the situation? Iyengar studied cultural variation and looked at Euro-Americans and how they would explain someone being late. If it’s an enemy they explain it by the person’s traits; if it’s themselves they explain it by features of the situation; if it’s a friend they tend to explain it by traits. The Japanese explain the self by features of the situation and friends by the situation; but they explain an enemy being late by their traits. Both groups show the actor/observer difference
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/26/2011 for the course PSYCH 166AC taught by Professor Peng during the Spring '11 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 5

201154278521 - PSYCHOLOGY 166AC Professor Kaiping Peng...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online