Social Psychology Case Study: John Buckingham Moved Across

Social Psychology Case Studywhen John Buckingham Moved Across The Coun

When John Buckingham moved across the country to take a new job, he didn’t expect to run into much difficulty. He would be doing the same kind of work he was used to doing, just for a new company. But when he arrived on his first day, he realized there was more for him to adjust to than he had realized. Clearly, John had moved to a region where the culture was much more laid back and casual than he was used to. He showed up for his first day in his usual business suit only to find that almost all the other employees wore jeans, Western shirts, and cowboy boots.

Many of them merely stared awkwardly when they first saw John, and then hurriedly tried to look busy while avoiding eye contact. John got the message. On his second day at work John also wore jeans and a casual shirt, although he didn’t yet own a pair own cowboy boots. He found that people seemed more relaxed around him, but that they continued to treat him warily. It would be several weeks—after he’d gone out and bought boots and started wearing them to work—before certain people warmed up to John enough to even talk to him.

Paper For Above instruction

In this case study, the behavior of John’s coworkers towards him reveals much about their attributions for his initial manner of dress and how social perceptions are formed based on appearance and cultural norms. When John arrived in casual attire contrary to the local norms, his coworkers’ reactions suggest that they likely attributed his initial formal dress to a lack of understanding of local culture or an attempt to appear more professional than necessary. Their avoidance and awkwardness can be interpreted as a form of social exclusion stemming from misattributions about his intentions, personality, or social identity. According to attribution theory, people tend to interpret others’ behaviors based on either dispositional traits or situational factors. In John’s case, his coworkers might have initially viewed his formal dress as a personality trait—possibly perceiving him as uptight, rigid, or outsiders—rather than recognizing it as a situational choice or lack of awareness regarding the local dress code.

The biases that influenced the coworkers’ impressions include cultural bias and in-group/out-group dynamics. The local employees probably viewed their casual dress code as the norm, and John’s deviation from this created a perception that he was different or even incompatible with their social environment. Stereotyping may also have played a role—assumptions that formal dress correlates with a lack of adaptability or social integration. Faulty schemas, such as the stereotype that outsiders or newcomers are uptight or unaligned with local customs, could have contributed to their initial wariness of John.

Evidence of the halo effect might be observed if the coworkers’ initial perceptions of John, based solely on his dress, influenced their overall impression of his personality or competence. For example, if they perceived his formal dress as a sign of professionalism, they might have subconsciously judged other attributes—such as social likability or trustworthiness—more negatively or positively based solely on that initial impression. This halo effect can reinforce biases, making it harder for John to be judged fairly based on his actual qualities or behavior, rather than superficial cues.

John’s decision to change his manner of dress shortly after starting his new job was likely driven by social motivation and adaptive behavior. The processes involved in his decision included social learning and impression management. Recognizing that his initial attire caused discomfort and social distance, John probably learned that aligning his appearance with the local norms would enhance social acceptance. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that he experienced discomfort arising from the inconsistency between his usual professional attire and the informal local culture. To reduce this dissonance and facilitate social integration, he altered his dress to mirror the casual style of his colleagues. Similarly, social proof—observing others’ casual dress—probably influenced his decision, as humans tend to conform to social norms to be accepted.

The initial reluctance of John’s coworkers to warm up to him can be explained through social identity theory and the concept of ingroup-outgroup biases. Their wariness was likely rooted in perceptions that John was different from the local social group—a perception initially grounded in his attire and demeanor. The hesitation to accept him fully might also stem from a desire to preserve ingroup cohesion and avoid the uncertainty associated with outsiders. Once John adopted the accepted dress code, indicating his willingness to conform to local customs, these biases gradually diminished, and social warmth increased. The process of re-acceptance involved cognitive reappraisal—seeing John as more similar to the ingroup—and social reintegration.

If I were the human resources director for this company, I would implement strategies aimed at reducing cultural and social biases that impede integration, such as diversity and inclusion training, cultural orientation programs, and mentorship initiatives. For example, onboarding programs could include cultural sensitivity modules that educate employees about regional differences and the importance of embracing diverse dressing styles and behaviors. Additionally, fostering a workplace culture that values individuality and cultural diversity can promote inclusivity.

Justifying these strategies to the company president involves emphasizing the long-term benefits of improved workplace cohesion, employee satisfaction, and retention. When employees feel accepted and understood regardless of their background or appearance, they are more likely to be engaged and productive. As research demonstrates, inclusive environments reduce bias and promote positive social interactions (Plaut, 2010). Furthermore, supporting diversity aligns with broader corporate social responsibility goals, enhances the company’s reputation, and can serve as a competitive advantage in attracting talent (Roberson, 2006). Implementing these strategies thus not only fosters a more harmonious work environment but also benefits the company’s overall performance and innovation.

References

• Feingold, A. (1994). Candidate attractiveness and voter support: a meta-analytic review of research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(2), 139–169.
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage Publications.
• Heine, S. J., & Ruby, M. B. (2010). Cultural psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 716–744). Wiley.
• Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interest, credibility, and trust: Factors in designing interventions to change thinking and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 657–666.
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
• Pietromonaco, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (2017). Conflict and the social regulation of emotion. In J. J. J. H. J. Van den Bos, & N. A. R. Van Beest (Eds.), The social and affective neuroscience of empathy. Elsevier.
• Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Loft.
• Snyder, M., & DeDreis, K. (1975). Self-monitoring and social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 271–281.
• Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 77–99.