3. Contexts Questionbank

Source 1: Researchers surveyed 800 university students (200 from each of four cultural groups: Sweden, Japan, Brazil, and Kenya). Students rated the question “How much do you trust a close friend?” on a 10-point scale. Responses of 8–10 were categorized as indicating “high trust.”

Source 2: Researchers were interested in investigating how adults from different cultural backgrounds experience and describe interpersonal trust. They conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 participants (8 from collectivist backgrounds and 7 from individualist backgrounds). The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis by two independent researchers. The researchers first identified categories (themes) separately, then compared their coding, and finally re-coded the transcripts together.

Source 3: An undergraduate student was interested in exploring differences in reported trust levels between students from individualist and collectivist cultural backgrounds. They recruited 50 participants from their own university (aged 18–22). Participants were asked two questions: “Rate your general trust in others on a scale from 1 to 10.” “State your cultural background.” Based on self-reported backgrounds, 28 participants were categorized as individualist and 22 as collectivist. The researcher summarized the data as follows:

Source 4: In a survey of 120 adult participants, aged between 30 and 50, (40 each from the USA, Japan, and Mexico), researchers administered two standardized scales: Collectivism Scale (1–7), wherein higher scores indicate stronger collectivist orientation, and the General Trust Scale (1–10) where higher scores indicate greater general trust in others. r(118) = 0.47, p < 0.01

Source 5: Researchers tested 120 participants (60 collectivist background, 60 individualist background) in a trust game with real money. Each participant received £10 and could choose how much to share with a partner.

Condition 1: Partner described as an “in-group” member.

Condition 2: Partner described as randomly assigned.

The researchers found that collectivist participants shared significantly more with in-group members (mean = £4.80). On the other hand, individualist participants shared more with randomly assigned partners (mean = £5.10). Overall sharing did not differ significantly across groups, but it is suggested that cultural framing influenced the trigger of trust.

Morales and Jensen (2020) investigated how stigma affects willingness to seek treatment for depression. Their aim was to examine whether negative attitudes toward therapy predicted lower treatment-seeking behaviour.

A sample of 400 university students completed anonymous surveys about their attitudes toward mental health treatment and whether they had ever sought therapy. Questions assessed perceived stigma (“Most people think less of someone who goes to therapy”) and personal stigma (“I would feel embarrassed if I sought therapy”).

Results showed that high stigma—especially personal stigma—was strongly associated with lower willingness to seek treatment.

[Note: Fictionalised but based on Corrigan’s stigma research.]

Source 1: Graph showing results of a study in which students from different countries were asked to complete an anxiety scale (scores converted to percentage of students showing high anxiety symptoms). All participants used social media for at least 3 hours per day over the past month.

Source 2: Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 university students who reported struggling with mental health. Interviews focused on their experiences with social media. Responses were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

Source 3: A psychology undergraduate wanted to explore the relationship between social media use and depression. They surveyed 100 students from their university, all of whom they personally knew to be frequent users of Instagram or TikTok. Students self-reported their average hours of social media use per day and completed a self-rated depression scale.

Source 4: Researchers investigated the relationship between daily social media use (in hours) and self-reported loneliness (score from 1 to 100) among 30 university students. r(28) = 0.854, p = 0.007

Source 1: Researchers at an institute studying youth conducted a large-scale survey of 400 adolescents. The participants came from a variety of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, and were all between the ages of 15-17. Participants were assured that the data would be anonymised and not shared with anyone outside the team of researchers. Using data and findings from previous studies on adolescents and risk-taking, the researchers generated a list of activities qualified as risk-taking or unsafe. This included, but is not limited to: speeding on a bicycle, car or similar vehicle; climbing or playing in unsafe places; engaging in the consumption of alcohol or recreational drugs; engaging in violent fights or altercations; and skipping school. The researchers administered this list, asking adolescents to mark the activities they had engaged in and to what frequency within the last 6 months. The researchers also asked participants to self-report sensation-seeking motivation (measured on a 1-7 scale).

Source 2: A qualitative study sought to explore what motivated adolescents, aged 16 to 18, to take risks. The sample consisted of 20 individuals, who took part in semi-structured interviews wherein they were questioned about what encouraged them to partake in “risky” behaviour. Researchers recorded and transcribed the interviews, before analysing the transcripts thematically.

Source 3: An undergraduate student studying psychology conducted a survey, using their own classmates as the sample. They wanted to understand why older adolescents (age 18 to 19) would engage in risky behaviour and why. The final sample included 50 classmates. The student researcher asked two open-ended questions: “Why do you engage in risky behaviours (if at all)?” and “Do you see these behaviours as harmful or helpful?”. The researcher then coded responses into three categories:

Source 4: An experiment tested how motivational framing influenced risk-taking in a simulated driving task. Ninety adolescents (ages 15 to 16) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:

Competition framing: “Try to beat others’ scores on the driving task.”

Curiosity framing: “See how far you can push your driving skills.”

Control: No framing.

The researchers then recorded the average number of risky decisions (e.g., speeding through yellow lights) made:

Okafor and Stein (2012) conducted an experimental study on whether oxytocin influences cooperation in social interactions. The aim was to test if oxytocin administration increases trust and cooperative behaviour.

Eighty participants were randomly assigned to inhale either oxytocin or a placebo before engaging in a series of trust games. In these games, Player 1 was given a sum of money and could choose how much to send to Player 2, knowing that the amount sent would be tripled. Player 2 then decided how much to return to Player 1. Cooperation was measured by how much participants sent and returned.

Results showed that participants who received oxytocin sent significantly more money and returned larger amounts, suggesting enhanced cooperation. However, cultural differences emerged: the effect was stronger in participants from collectivist backgrounds than in individualist ones.

[Note: Fictionalised but draws on Kosfeld et al. (2005) and later cultural studies.]

A high school teacher introduces a new revision strategy and wants to know if it improves students’ ability to recall material for exams. Some students use the method while others stick to their usual habits, and their performances are compared.