SOCIOCULTURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS:SOCIOCULTURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS:SOCIAL AND CULTURAL NORMSSOCIAL AND CULTURAL NORMS
Explain social learning theory,making reference to two relevant studies.
Social Learning Theory (SLT)• Bandura suggested SLT (1977) as anextension of existing learning theories(classical and operant conditioning).• SLT is based on the assumption thatpeople learn behaviours, attitudes,emotional reactions and normsthrough direct experiences but alsothrough observing other humans(models).Albert Bandura(born: 4th December 1925)
Social Learning Theory (SLT)• We learn consequences of behaviour from watching whathappenes to other humans (vicarious reinforcement).• Once such information is stored in memory it serves as aguide to future actions.• People are more likely to imitate behaviour that haspositive consequances.• Social learning can be direct via instructions or indirect.
important factors in social learning
factors influencing SLT• Consistencyo The model must act in a consistent way across situations.• Identificationo The ability of the learner to identify with the model, e.g. age, gender.• Rewardo If the model was rewarded, the learner is more likely to learn from the model.• Friendlinesso Friendly models are more likely to be imitated.
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigation onlearning aggression from a modelAim: to see if children would imitate the agrression of an adultmodel and whether they would imitate same-sex modelsmore than opposite sex models.
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigation onlearning aggression from a modelProcedure: 36 boys and 36 girls (mean age 4,4) who were divided into 3 groups matched onlevels of aggressivnes before the experiment.Group 1 saw an adult models who behave aggressively towards a bobo dollGroup 2 observed an adult model who assamble toysGroup 3 served as a controlThe children were further divided into groups so that some saw same-sex models and someopposite-sex models.The lab was set up as a play room with toys and bobo doll. The model either played with thetoys or behaved aggressively towards the bobo doll. After seeing this children were broughtinto a room with toys and bobo doll where they were observed for 20 minutes through one –way mirror.
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigationon learning aggression from a model
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigation onlearning aggression from a modelResults:•Children who had seen an aggressive model were significantlymore aggressive (physically and verablly) towards the bobo doll.They imitated the aggressive behaviour of the model but alsoshowed other forms of aggression.•Children were also more likely to imitate same-sex models.•Boys weremore aggressive overall than girls.
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigation onlearning aggression from a modelDiscussion of results:•This study supports SLT. Aggressive behaviour can be learnedthrough observational learning.•It is not possible to conclude that children always becomeaggressive when they watch violent models (e.g. on tv or at home).•Generally research supports that children tend to imitate same-sex models more and this is also the case for adults.
Bandura and Ross (1961) - Experimental investigation onlearning aggression from a modelEvaluation:•Low ecological validity – lab experiment•The aggression is artificial and there may be demandcharacteristics•The children were very young – and it has been crticized forethical reasons
Charlton et al. (2002) Observation of the introductionof television in a remote community (St. Helena)Aim: To investigate whether children in St. Helena wouldexibit more aggressive behaviour after the introduction oftelevision to the island in 1995 .
Charlton et al. (2002) Observation of the introductionof television in a remote community (St. Helena)Procedure:•The study was a natural experiment.•Children (aged 3 – 8 years) were observed before and after theintroduction of television through cameras set up in the playgroundsof two primary schools on the island.•The level of aggression in television matched what children in the UKwere exposed to.•The researchers also conducted interviews with teachers, parents andsome of the older children.
Charlton et al. (2002) Observation of the introductionof television in a remote community (St. Helena)Results:•There was no increase in aggressive and antisocial behaviour.This was also the case after five years.
Charlton et al. (2002) Observation of the introductionof television in a remote community (St. Helena)Discussion of results:•The data showed that children did not change their behaviour after television had arrivedalthough they saw the same amount of violent television as British children.•The parents and teachers said that antisocial behaviour was not accepted on the islandand that there was a high degree of social control in the community.•It shows that people may learn aggressive behaviour but they may not exhibit it for severalreasons.•Social and cultural factors also play a role in what behaviours are acceptable, so eventhough the children had no doubt learned aggressive behaviour, they did not show it.
Charlton et al. (2002) Observation of the introductionof television in a remote community (St. Helena)Evaluation:•The study investigated the real-life event and is high inecological validity.•It does not question SLT but rather the results of Bandura andRoss (1961) experiment.•The results also confirm the idea that people must bemotivated to imitate behaviour.
Evaluate research on conformityto group norms.
Conformity• Is the tendency to adjust one`sthoughts, feelings, or behaviourin ways that are in agreementwith those of a particularindividual or group, or withaccepted standards about howa person should behave inspecific situations (social norms).
Examples of conformity…
Sherif (1936) Experimental investigation ofconformity to perceived group norm• Sherif used the autokinetic effect• Half of the participants first watched the lightalone and gave a verbal estimate of how much andin what direction the light moved.• Sherif found that after a number of trialsparticipants began to estimate based on their ownframe of reference.
Sherif (1936) Experimental investigation ofconformity to perceived group norm• Then the experiment continued in groups with three to four participants whotook turns to estimate in random order.• The participants now used each others estimates as a frame of reference andthese converged into more or less identical estimates.• A group norm had developed, which participants conformed to once it hadbeen established.• Then the other half of the participants performed the estimation task alone.• Sherif found that participants continued to estimate based on the groupnorm when they did the task alone. The results showed that social normsemerge to guide behaviour when people find themselves in uncertain
Sherif (1936) Experimental investigation ofconformity to perceived group norm• Strengths of Sherifs study• Sherifs study is one of the most influential experimentsin social psychology. It has generated a large amountof research.• The study demonstrates how a group norm can beestablished and continue to influence a personsjudgement even when the social influence is no longerpresent.
Sherif (1936) Experimental investigation ofconformity to perceived group norm• Limitations of Sherifs study• The experiment was conducted in a laboratory. Thetask was artificial and ambiguous and this couldinfluence the results.• Ethics: participants were not informed about thepurpose of the experiment (informed consent) but thiswas not the norm at the time of Sherifs experiment.
Asch (1951) Experimental investigation ofconformity to the majority.• Aim:• To investigate whether perceived grouppressure by a majority can influence aminority in an experimental set-up that is notambiguous.
Asch (1951) Experimental investigation ofconformity to the majority.• Procedure:• Seven male college students were placed around two white cards.• There was one real participant (naive participant) in theexperimental setup and six were confederates who were instructedto give unanimous wrong answers.• This was done during 12 of the 18 trials in the experiment.• A control group of 37 participants made the estimates alone forcomparison.
Asch (1951) Experimental investigation ofconformity to the majority.• Results:• In the control group 35participants did not makea single error so in total0.7% errors were made.
Asch (1951) Experimental investigation ofconformity to the majority.• Strengths of Aschs study• A high degree of control ensures that a cause-effect relationship can beestablished between variables.• Aschs results have been replicated several times so the results are reliable.• The results of the experiment in terms of conformity rates can, to someextent, explain why people conform to social and cultural norms in real life.• Conformity may be universal to some degree but conformity rates varycross-culturally.
Asch (1951) Experimental investigation ofconformity to the majority.• Limitations of Aschs study• Laboratory experiments are artificial and somewhat difficult to generalizeto real life (issues of ecological validity).• The experiment was conducted in the USA with male » students asparticipants so this affects generalization.• The results can only explain how a majority may influence a minority butnot the other way round,• The participants were deceived about the purpose of the experiment andthey were exposed to embarrassing procedures. This raises ethical issues.
Can conformity research reveal anythingabout conformity in real life?• Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue that the research may have a socialand cultural bias.• First, Sherifs study was conducted in the USA in a time whenconformity was the norm and this may have changed since.• Nicholson et al. (1985) suggest that participants now tend toconform less in Asch-like experiments. This could indicate thatlevels of conformity are context-dependent and may changeovertime.• Second, conformity patterns may be different in other cultures.
Can conformity research reveal anythingabout conformity in real life?• Moscovici (1976) argues that traditional conformityresearch cannot explain the minority influences on themajority, which have been observed in a real life (e.g.various successful independence movements)• Research shows that ingroup minorities have a greaterchance of exerting influence than outgroup minorities.
Discuss factors influencing conformity(for example, culture, groupthink,risky shift, minority influence).
Informational conformity(informational influence)• When an individual turns to members of a group to obtaininformation about what is right (e.g. when the availableinformation is ambiguous),• Example of research study: Sherif (1935).
Normative conformity(normative social influence)• When an individual conforms in order to be accepted or likedby other members of the group.• People have a need for social approval and acceptance.• Example of research study: Asch (1951).
Conformity(referent informational influence)• When an individual identifies with a particular social group(ingroup) and conforms to a prototypical group norm –increase in similarity between ingroup members as well asdifference group.
Situational factors in conformity:group size and group unanimity• Group size:• When there was (in Asch study) only one confederate theparticipant answered correctly• With two confederates the minority participants errors roseto 13.6%.• With three confederates the errors jumped to 31.8%.• Further increases in confederates did not increase errors
Situational factors in conformity:group size and group unanimity• Group unanimity:• Asch introduced social support to the naive participant, eitheranother naive participant or a confederate who had beeninstructed to go along with the naive participant.• The presence of a supporter reduced errors from 35% toaround 5.5%.• It seems that breaking the group unanimity is the mainfactor in reducing conformity.
Cultural norms as a factor in conformity• Bond and Smith (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 133 studies in17 different countries on the Asch paradigm.• They found higher conformity levels in collectivistic cultures than inindividualistic cultures.• The level of conformity (i.e. percentage of incorrect answers)ranged from 15% in an experiment with Belgian students (Dorns,1983) to 58% among Indian teachers in Fiji (Chandra, 1973).• They also found that generally the conformity was higher when themajority group was large.
Cultural norms as a factor in conformity• Berry (1967) used a variation of Aschs conformity experiment to study whetherconformity rates among– the Temne in Sierra Leone in Africa and– the Inuits of Baffin Island in Canadacould be linked to social norms and socialization practices.• He found that the Temne, who had an agricultural economy, had high conformitylevels. The culture emphasized obedience in child-rearing practices because theculture is dependent on cooperation in farming.• The Inuits are hunters and often hunt alone. They therefore need to be able tomake decisions for themselves.
Cultural norms as a factor in conformity• Kagitcibasi (1984) studied socialization patterns in nine different countries:Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines, Sinagapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, theUSA, and Germany.• The study included 20,000 interviews with parents on the qualities theyconsidered most desirable in children (e.g. if they wanted their children to beindependent and self-reliant or if they wanted them to be obedient).• Parents from Turkey and Indonesia found it important that children obeyed themand did not emphasize independence and self-reliance.• The opposite pattern was found in the USA. Parents in Singapore, Taiwan, andThailand also tended to emphasize self-reliance rather than obedience.
Define the terms „culture” and „cultural norms”
• Lonner (1995): Culture can be defined as the common rules thatregulate interactions and behaviour in a group as well as a number ofshared values and attitudes in the group.• Hofstede (1995): Culture can be defined as a collective mentalprogramming that is the "software of the mind" that guides a group ofpeople in their daily interactions and distinguishes them from othergroups of people.• Matsumoto (2004): Culture can be defined as a dynamic system ofrules, explicit and implicit, established by groups in order to ensuretheir survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, andbehaviours.
• Cultural norms can be defined as the rules that a specific group usesfor stating what is seen as appropriate and inappropriatebehaviours, values, beliefs, and attitudes,• Cultural norms give people a sense of order and control in their livesas well as a sense of safety and belonging. Cultural norms mayinclude communication style, whom to marry and how, child-rearingpractices, or interaction between generations.• Cultural norms can be explicit (e.g. legal codes) or implicit (i.e.conventional practices and rituals).
Examine the role of two culturaldimensions on behaviour (for exampleindividualism/collectivism, power distance,uncertainty avoidance, Confuciandynamism, masculinity/feminity).
Cultural dimensions• A dimension of culture is an aspect of culture that can be measured relative toother cultures.• The conceptual framework "cultural dimensions" was suggested by Hofstede(1980) in his survey of 88,000 IBM employees working in 66 countries across theworld.• Hofstede argues that differences in behaviour are a consequence of culture• Culture should be seen as a collective phenomenon that may distinguish onegroup from another on specific dimensions. Culture is seen as "mentalprogramming or "mental software".• An individuals mental software will determine the way the person acts and thinksand the mental software is resistant to change.
Collectivism and individualismINDIVIDUALIST COUNTRIES• e.g. France, Germany, USA• people tend to see themselves asindividuals who must take care ofthemselves.• Ties between individuals areloose and voluntary.• Typical values are freedom,personal challenge, and personaltime.COLLECTIVIST COUNTRIES• e.g. Japan, Mexico and Korea• the individual is tied to socialgroups such as families orclans throughout their lifetime• This extended social groupprovides safety in return forloyalty.
Collectivism and individualism• Wei et al. (2001): survey on collectivism vs. individualism on conflictresolution styles• Aim: To investigate the extent to which the dimension ofindividualism vs. collectivism influenced conflict resolutioncommunication styles.• Procedure: A group of 600 managers working in companies inSingapore was randomly selected for this survey. The participantswere divided into four groups: Japanese, Americans, ChineseSingaporeans working in multinational companies and ChineseSingaporeans working in local companies.
Collectivism and individualism• Results:• The higher the score in the individualist dimension the more likely themanager was to adopt a dominating conflict resolution style.• American managers (individualist dimension) were generally more likely toadopt dominating conflict resolution style and less likely to adopt anavoiding conflict resolution style than Asian managers.• Asian managers did not always adopt an avoidant conflict resolution style aspredicted by the collectivism-individualism dimension.• In some cases, American managers who had been in Singapore for severalyears had adopted a more Asian conflict resolution style.
Collectivism and individualism• Discussion of results• The collectivism vs. individualism dimension in relation toconflict resolution styles was only somewhat confirmed.• The researchers conclude that conflict resolution styles arecomplex and cannot be reduced to cultural dimensionsalone. For example, differences found within the groups ofAsian managers were larger than between groups.
Collectivism and individualism• Evaluation:• The survey used a large and representative cross- culturalsample of managers in Singapore so the results can begeneralized.• The study relies on self-reports so there may be issues ofreliability of the data but overall the results are reliable.
Long- and short-term orientation• Hofstede and Bond 1988:• This relates to a cultural dimension found in Asian countries.• China was not included in Hofstede’s original study but Hofstedeand Bond (1988) suggested this dimension based on the Confucianwork dynamism.• Values such as persistence, loyalty, trustworthiness, respect fortradition, and conservation of „face” are central to this dimension.
Long- and short-term orientation• Basset (2004) qualitative research to compareperception of conflict resolution in Australian andChinese students• Aim: To investigate differences in Chinese andAustralian students’ perception of conflict resolution inrelation to the collectivist vs. individualist dimensionand long-term vs. short-term orientation.
Long- and short-term orientation• Procedure• The investigation was a qualitative cross-cultural study.• The students were bachelor students of business and management.• They were asked to analyse a potential conflict situation between aJapanese supervisor and a Canadian visiting assistant teacher.• The same question was answered by 30 students (15 Chinese and15 Australian), each from their own cultural perspective: "Discusshow this conflict might be resolved in China (or Australia). "
Long- and short-term orientation• Results• Generally, the data confirmed Hofstedes individualistand collectivist dimensions but not all data could beexplained by this.• As for long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation,the Chinese data confirmed the importance of thisdimension in understanding behaviour.
Long- and short-term orientationCHINA AUSTRALIAThe Chinese are concerned about face-saving and interpersonal relationships.They want to solve problems and enhancerelationships at a dinner table.Policies and procedures dictate the wayemployees and the organization operatesrather than culture and tradition.It is important to pay attention to arelationship; perhaps inviting the personto dinner or offering gifts could help therelationship.Issues such as saving face are notimportant since parties will push forarbitration and mediation if they feel thatthey are being treated unfairly.
Using one or more examples,explain „emic” and „etic” concepts.
K.L. Pike (1967) suggestedthe emic and the etic conceptsto address the issues of"culture specific" versus "universal",i.e. what is consistent across cultures.
• Emic research studies one culture alone to understand culture-specificbehaviour.• Researchers attempt to study behaviour: through the eyes of the peoplewho live in that culture.• The way the phenomenon is linked to the culture (structure) and themeaning it has in this particular cultural (context) is emphasized.• The focus is on the norms, values, motives, and customs of the membersof the culture as they interpret and understand it themselves, explainedwith their own words.
• Bartlett (1932) mentioned the extraordinary ability of Swaziherdsmen to recall individual characteristics of their cattle. Heexplained that the Swazi culture revolves around the possessionand care of cattle and it is important for people to recognize theiranimals because this is part of their fortune.
• Yap (1967) suggested the term "culture-bound syndrome" (CBS) as a culture-specific psychological disorder which canonly be fully understood within a specificcultural context.• Among the Yoruba people of West African itis believed that spirits may come into thepossession of a persons soul and that theperson can be treated by healing and spellsspoken by a medicine man or a healer(Ayode, 1979).
• Etic research compares psychological phenomenaacross cultures to find out what could be universal inhuman behaviour.• The purpose of research is to compare and contrastcultural phenomena across cultures to investigatewhether phenomena are culture-specific or universal.
• Kashima and Triandis (1986) found a difference in the way people explaintheir own success when they compared Japanese and Americanparticipants.• The American participants tended to explain their own success bydispositional attributions whereas the Japanese participants madesituational attributions.• The American participants demonstrated the self-serving bias and theJapanese the self-effacing bias, which has also been observed in otherAsian countries where people are socialized to see themselves as part of asocial group.
• Berry (1967) used a variation of Aschs conformityexperiment to study whether conformity rates among theTemne in Sierra Leone in Africa and the Inuits of BaffinIsland in Canada could be linked to social norms andsocialization practices.
• He found that the Temne, who had an agricultural economy, hadhigh conformity rates. The culture emphasized obedience in child-rearing practices because the culture is dependent on cooperationin farming.
• The Inuits are hunters and often hunt alone. They therefore need tobe able to make decisions for themselves. Child-rearing practicesemphasize self-reliance because this is needed within this culture.This could explain why the Inuits score low on conformity.
Discuss the use of compliance techniques(for example: lowballing, foot-in-the door,reciprocity)
Robert B. Cialdiniborn: April 27, 1945• Robert Cialdini outlined compliancetechniques.• compliance refers to changing ones behaviordue to the request or direction of anotherperson (group)• Compliance is a major topic of interest withinthe field of consumer psychology – howsellers can influence buyers and persuadethem to purchase goods and services
6 key principles of influence by Robert6 key principles of influence by RobertCialdiniCialdini1. Reciprocity - People often feel to return a favor, (i.e.: free samples: Tupperware,Amway; the good cop/bad cop strategy)2. Commitment and Consistency – once people have agreed to something (in writing orby behaviour), they are likely to comply with similar request. to an idea or goal, theywant to be consisnet with their self-image, as well.3. Social Proof - People view behaviour as correct if they see others performing it (i.e.:in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanderswould then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing)4. Authority - People comply more often with those in positions of some authority.5. Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people that they like.6. Scarcity – opportunities seem more valuable to people when they are less readilyavailable („last chance”, „limited time only” sales)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw&list=PLifq-kQ4Key2GEybceFL1kaDqR-YVbveK&index=11
• The social norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat other people the way theytreat us• People are socialized into returning favours and this powerful rule underpinscompliance.• Lynn and McCall (1988) found that restaurants who offered a mint or a sweet withthe bill received larger tips.• Tiger and Fox (1971) suggested that reciprocation (mutual indebtedness) could bea result of evolution. The feeling of future obligation has made an importantdifference in human social evolution, because it meant that one individual couldoffer something (e.g. food, or care) to another individual and be confident that heor she could expect something in return.
The norm (or rule) of reciprocityThe norm (or rule) of reciprocityhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7xw-oDjwXQ&feature=player_embedded
Aim:•To test whether participants who had received a favour from another would be more likely to help thisperson than if they had not received a favour.Procedure:•One participant and a confederate of the experimenter were asked to rate paintings.•In the experimental condition the confederate left the experiment and returned after a few minuteswith two bottles of coca cola (one for himself and one for the participant)•In the control condition, the participant did not receive a coke.•When all the paintings had been rated the experimenter left the room and the confederate toldthe naive participant that he was selling raffle tickets for a new car and that the one who soldthe most tickets could win $50.•He then asked the participant if he would buy some tickets and said that even a smallamount would help.
Regan (1971) A laboratory experiment to test reciprocityRegan (1971) A laboratory experiment to test reciprocityResults•The participants in the experimental condition bought twice as many raffle ticketsthan participants in the control condition who had not received a favour first.•As a follow-up to the experiment the researcher investigated how much "liking" theconfederate influenced the participant. The participants were asked to fill out ratingscales indicating how much they liked the confederate. In the control condition„liking” was associated with buying significantly more tickets. In the experimentalcondition it made no difference whether the participants liked the person or not.•This shows the powerful influence of the rule of reciprocity: Even ifpeople dont like a person they will return a favour.
Regan (1971) A laboratory experiment to test reciprocityRegan (1971) A laboratory experiment to test reciprocityEvaluation•This was a laboratory experiment with a high degree of control.•It was possible to establish cause-effect relationships between"receiving a favour" and "returning a favour".•This supports the principle of reciprocity.•There may be issues of artificiality in the experiment as well assample bias. This limits the possibility of generalization.•The findings have been supported by observations in real life.
• Ting-Toomey (1986) compared reciprocity in three individualist cultures(Australia, the USA, and France) with reciprocity in two collectivistcountries (Japan and China).• She found that the principle of reciprocity is universal.• This could support the evolutionary argument but reciprocity is displayeddifferently in the two types of culture.• In individualist cultures: reciprocity is voluntary so people are free tochoose if they want to return a favour.• In collectivist cultures: obligatory reciprocity is the norm. It is seen as amoral failure if reciprocity is not honoured.
• With the FITD technique, the real (and large) request ispreceded by a smaller one (fund raising, promoteenvironmental awareness)
• Dickerson et al. (1992) did a field experiment where they asked universitystudents to conserve water in the dormitory showers.• The researchers first asked a group of students to sign a poster supportingshorter showers to save water – small request• Then they asked students to do a survey asking themto think about their own water usage.• Finally the students shower time was monitored.Students who had signed the poster and had donethe survey spent an average of 3.5 minutes less in theshower compared to the rest of the students.
TheThe Foot-in-the-doorFoot-in-the-door techniquetechnique• Doliński (2000) – experiment in Wrocław, participants: passerbys• Experimental group: passerby asked by a girl how to get toZybrzyckiego Street – there is no such street (small request) andafter that (a few minutes later) another girl asked if passerby couldlook after a huge bag for 5 minutes while she went up to the fifthfloor to see a friend - there was no elevator (big request)– 62% agreed for the second request counterpart tocontrol group – 28%
TheThe Foot-in-the-doorFoot-in-the-door techniquetechnique• Freedman and Fraser (1966)• They were first asked to sign a petition for either safe driving orkeep california beautiful. The second request was to install a largeugly sign which said „Drive Carefully” - 63% (safe driving) and 48%(keep Cal…) agreed for billboard• Counterpart to control group – only big request – 17% agreed
• Once people have said yes, they perceive themselves as committedand want to behave consistently with that commitment.• Much research done in this area has used pro-social requests• It is more likely to be successful if the second request is anextension of the first one instead of being something completelydifferent (self- consistency)• The foot-in-the-door technique is most powerfulwhen the persons self-image is related to the request.
• First you make large request (on the assumption someone will refuse).Than you follow-up with smaller more reasonable request• Cialdini (1975) asked students to volunteer to council juvenile delinquentsfor two hours a week for two years.After their refusal, they were asked to takejuvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo.50% agreed to take them to the zoo as comparedto 17% of participants who only received the zoorequest .
• This works by first gaining commitment to the idea or item atlower costs which you are confident that the other person willaccept, then using the fact that people will behaveconsistently with their beliefs to sustain the commitmentwhen you change the agreement at a higher level (a personbelieves that a decision made - at lower costs - cannot bereversed)
• Robert Cialdini, et al. (1978) asked students to participate in anexperiment and 56% agreed.• They then told the volunteers that the study was scheduled at 7a.m. and the volunteers could withdraw at their free will.• None did so and 95% turned up at the scheduled time• Nonetheless, when a control group was asked toparticipate and were told the unsocial timing of theexperiment up front, only 24% agreed to participate.