Psychology Past Paper PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by BrighterWilliamsite5570
Tags
Summary
This document is a collection of psychology lectures, covering topics like personality and gender, along with various theories from different schools of thought.
Full Transcript
THE DARK TRIAD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ● ● ● ● TRAITS OUTSIDE COMMON MODELS ● ● ● ● ● S elf-efficay: subjective perception of capability to perform Self-esteem: evaluation of one’s self Locus of control: beliefs that your life outcomes arise from your ow...
THE DARK TRIAD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ● ● ● ● TRAITS OUTSIDE COMMON MODELS ● ● ● ● ● S elf-efficay: subjective perception of capability to perform Self-esteem: evaluation of one’s self Locus of control: beliefs that your life outcomes arise from your own agency/ability (internal) vs external factors outside your control (external) ○ Later divided into 3 attributions of cause: internal, powerful others, chance Need for cognition: tendency to enjoy engaging in cognitive activities Empathy: affective (feeling) or cognitive (knowing) ● ● METHODS ● ● ● THE JINGLE-JANGLE JUNGLE ● ● J ingle fallacy: thinking that two things are the same because they have the same name ○ Eg. personality trait related to low neuroticism vs crystallized knowledge of emotion vocabulary Jangle fallacy: thinking that two things are different because they have different names ○ Eg. grit and consciensiouness ifferent personality measures D Facets vs domains Different countries POSSIBLE REASON FOR DIFFERENCES ● ● ● ● PERSONALITY AND GENDER ● Meta-analysis by Schmitt on Big-5 ○ All small to moderate differences Extraversion ○ Women higher for enthusiasm ○ Men higher for assertiveness Agreeableness ○ Women higher for all facets Conscientiousness ○ Similar scores for all facets Neuroticism ○ Women higher for all facets ■ Larger effect for withdrawal facets Openness ○ Men are higher for intellect ○ Women higher for aesthetics facets Social roles ○ Social modelling: copying parent of the same gender ○ Social reinforcement Biological Evolutionary psychology theory Artefactual explanations ○ Expectancy model: stereotypes, self-forfilling ○ Artefact model: lie on tests to fit stereotypes Reasons to study gender differences in personality ○ Hiring for jobs ○ Diagnostically (under/over- diagnosis) NARRATIVE REVIEW VS META-ANALYSIS ● ● Narrative review: a comprehensive narrative review ○ Maccoby’s narrative review ■ Men are more assertive than women ■ Women are more anxious than men ■ More differences exist than in book ■ Subject interpretation ○ Doesn’t have a structure to identify studies of relevance, not all studies may be included Meta-analysis: systematic search for all research findings on a topic (from all single studies to make one big one) ○ Gets effect by average effect across studies (Cohen’s d) ○ Meta-analysis by Feingold ■ Different results to Maccoby’s book ● Anxiety still higher for women PSYC2017 ● ● ● S uper-factors have a negative association with the dark triad ○ Largest magnitude is for stability Differences in gender are bigger in the USA than the rest of the world The expectancy model = faking gender-appriate responses on personailty questionnaires ○ The artifa t model is when the person believes the are “good” or fake being “good” 11 ○ PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE SITUATIONISM VS DISPOSITIONISM ● ● ● Dispositionism: Personality determines behaviour ○ Personality is dynamic and organised ○ Every person has all traits to different degrees ○ Traits are relatively stable over time and situation Situationalism: the situation determines behaviour ○ Evidence ■ Inter-person variation differs more than between-person variation ■ The variance which can be accounted for by personality is low ● Personality coefficient = 0.3 ● Therefore situation is more important ■ Dispositionists are committing the fundamental attribution error ● Overestimating the degree to which an individual’s behaviour is determined by their personality The debate ○ The personality coefficient is not low, it is a small to moderate effect and accounts for 9% (square of the correlation) of behaviour differences ■ Situation accounts for only 0.21 ○ Therefore: ■ Behaviour = situation + personality + personality/situation interaction + error → interactionism ○ ○ SITUATION MODELS ● S ituational Eight (DIAMONDS) = describes the important characteristics of situations (psycholgically important persons, places, objects) 1. Duty 2. Intellect 3. Adversity 4. Mating 5. Positivity 6. Negativity 7. Deception 8. Sociality ● -factor model of situations (CAPTION) = similar to 7 situation eight but is based on the lexical hypothesis (like the big-5) 1. Complexity = intellect 2. Adversity = same 3. Positivite valence = positivity 4. Typicallity (different) 5. Importance = duty 6. Humour (different) 7. Negative valence = negativity and decption INTERACTIONISM ● ersonality related to situation selection: people P choose to do things consistent with their personality ■ Eg. an extraverted person going to a party Personality related to situation creation: personality traits shape the situation around them ■ Eg. an aggressive person throwing a punch Personailty can affect how people see the situation (thereby changing their behaviour) ■ Eg. stressful social interaction has larger effect for introverts Interactionalism = Both traits and situations influence behaviour and interact ○ People will act in different ways in different situations, but across time, they will tend to act in one way more than another PERSONALITY COHORT DIFFERENCES RESEARCH DESIGN FOR PERSONALITY CHANGE SITUATIONAL CONTRACTUAL MODEL ● ● S ituation contractual model = personality and situation characteristics interact to influence how people construed the situation (contructural) and how they repsond (behaviour) ● ● PSYC2017 Longitudinal ○ Follows a single cohort (born in the same year) as they age ○ Problem: Theories of personailty may change across time Cross-sectional ○ Looks at different ages in the population at a single time point ○ Problem: Cohort differences ■ Differences in personality not due to age (Eg. differences in life events) Cohort sequences ○ Follows 2 or more cohorts as they age ○ To compare developmental trajectory of different cohorts 12 ● Conflicting finding for neuroticism ○ Increasing USA uni students (maybe because more women in education) ○ Decreasing middle age and older USA WHOLE TRAIT THEORY ● ● COHORT DIFFERENCES ● ● ● Life events ○ Family size decreasing ○ Education increasing ○ Women working increasing ○ Technology use ○ Major world events Major milestones happenlaterfor later-born cohorts ○ First job ○ Marriage ○ Buying a home ○ First child ○ Retirement Definition of traits change in cohorts ○ Eg. conscientiousness for women in 1930 = being a wife vs in 2023 = working hard at a job ● 3 CENTRAL PRINCIPLES 1. 2. 3. GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES ● ● ● ● ross temporal meta-analysis studies: compares score C means from different years Narcissism (similar for self-esteem) ○ Uni student’s narcissism has increased ■ d = 0.36 ○ Possible reasons: ■ Increase in individualism ■ Changes in educational practices, parenting practices and social media use ○ Conflicting study determines no difference, but when student split by race (asian and white), data shows upwards trend for both (ethic confounding variable) ■ Asian student have lower narcissism ■ Therefore, increasing number of asian students resulted in appearance of np change ○ An American phenomenon due to WEIRD? ■ Decrease in china Increasing intelligence ○ Flynn effect = IQ scores rising ○ Possibly due to increasing nutrition, resources, healthcare Increasing extraversion ○ Possibly due to schools emphasising social skills, service economy PSYC2017 S tate = condition at a particular time Trait = an enduring characteristic that describes or determines an individual’s behaviour across a range of situations Fleeson: personality can be conceptualised as fluctuating states as well as stable traits ○ Personality differs within the same person across time BUT average level is stable when compared to others with lower/higher levels Trait levels have both a description and explanatory part ○ Trait-DES = description of behaviour ○ Trait-EXP = cause of behaviour Trait-DES is operationalised as a density/frequency distribution of personality state (behaviour) across time ○ Not 1 value, but rather a distribution with a mean Trait-EXP = the goals/motivations/interpretations that influence how a person manifests that trait (behaves) at any given moment ○ Eg. goal = connect with people → higher extraversion EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD ● E xperience sampling method (ESM) = method of assessing states ○ Assessing behaviour at random time points to get a clear picture of how they behave in various real-world settings ○ Can measure people states multiple times a day for several days ■ Personality states ■ Emotions ■ Context ○ Can be contrasted with a questionnaire ○ States over time give frequency distribution 13 CONSTANCY OF THE BIG-5 CHANGE VS CONSISTENCY ● ● onsistency = the rank-order of people on that trait stays C the same ○ Involves >1 person ○ Eg. group of students rank for extraversion stays the same across time ○ Empirical test: correlation (r) Change = the absolute level of the trait differs ○ Involves 1 person ○ Empirical test: means compared at time 1 and time 2 META-ANALYSIS OF STUDIES ● ● ● ● ● EVIDENCE OF STABILTY ● ● Rank order stability (longitudinal study) ○ Difference in neuroticism at time 2 can be explained by the rank order at time 1 ■ Correlation (r) ○ → Personality is stable Correlation of personality and age (cross sectional study) ○ Alpha is increasing with age and Beta is decreasing with age ■ Correlation (r) ○ → Personality is stable THE FIVE FACTOR DEBATE ● EVIDENCE OF CHANGE ● L ife events theory = Life events require new behavioural, cognitive and emotional responses ○ Effects: small, strongest for first time events indicating major life transition ○ Cohort sequences study for agreeableness: ■ Community service vs military service ■ Personailty predicted choice of situation ■ Situation changed personality traits across time ■ Would the community group show an increase in agreeableness anyway? PSYC2017 Conscientiousness ○ Longitudinal: increase at each life stage ■ Only small significant in 20/30s ○ Cross sectional: same Extraversion ○ Split into social vitality and dominance ○ Longitudinal: ■ Small signifant effect of dominance ■ Negative effect for vitality ○ Cross sectional: opposite Agreeableness ○ Longitudinal: increase at each life stages ■ Only small significant in 50s/60s ○ Cross sectional: same Neuroticism ○ Longitudinal: decrease at all life stages ■ Only small significant in 20-40s ○ Cross sectional: same Openness ○ Longitudinal: increases earlier in life, the decreases later ○ Cross sectional: different, all decreasing ● ● Costa and McCrae: ○ The 5 factors are enduring and stable dispositions that manifest as behaviour ○ Traits of each factor are found in a variety of personality systems, languages, ages, sexes and races ○ They have a heritabilty and biological basis ■ Heritabilty → personality has a biological basis Eysenck: ○ These justicications are way too broad ○ Not sufficient to say 5-factor model is basic ○ There is a strong correlation ebtween A, O and C ■ Can be combined into psychotisism ■ Intellect overlaps with conscientiousnes and openness ○ No theoretical basis = unscientific ■ Heritsbilty is not sufficient to determine a biological basis ○ Appropriateness of questionaires in cohorts Nomological network = a theory, a list of laws and principles ○ Avoids subjectivity and misinterpretation of factors 14 EMOTIONS UNIVERSAL BASIC EMOTIONS ● ● The 6 basic emotions: ○ Anger ○ Disgust ○ Fear ○ Happiness ○ Sadness ○ Surprise ○ POSSIBLY contempt Evolutionary link ○ Darwin suggests these basic emotions are developed as survival tendencies and are universal (though display rules may differ between cultures) ■ Communication value ■ Suggests biological/genetic basis of emotions ■ Eg. disgust = spit out bitter food to avoid poisoning PLUTCHIK’S WHEEL OF EMOTION ● ● 8 primary emotions arranged as opposites ○ More intense emotions in the middle ○ Dyads = blend of basic emotions Less empirical evidence MODELS OF EMOTION AFFECT CIRCUMPLEX MODEL (RUSSEL) ● ● ● ircumplex models of emotion = cross over of 2 C dimensions Valence = positive → negative Core effect = underlying physiological changes that led to emotions; eg. fear → palms sweat ○ Results in subjective experience COMPONENT PROCESS MODEL ● ● ● AFFECT WHEEL (GENEVA) ● Similar to Russel’s model ○ Focuses on intensity of emotion ○ Different interpretation of arousal (as power) ● PSYC2017 ore consensus and recent M Process by which emotions occur ○ Occurs in a sequence over time ○ Gives rise to components Components = a reaction to environmental triggers 1. Appraisal with respect to goals 2. Physiological changes in brain or body 3. Action tendencies (a behaviour or response pattern for each emotion) 4. The internal experience of having a particular feeling 5. Expressions of the face, voice, and body to communicate Emotion → mood → affective trait ○ Strongly influenced by situation 15 ARNOLD’S APPRAISAL THEORY ● F eelings, expressions and physiological changes → emotion ○ Occur at the same time ○ Caused by appraisals of the situation in terms of personal meaning ○ Eg. I am sad and frown because I appraise the situation as one of loss COPING AND EMOTIONAL REGULATION ● 14 different appraisals ○ Relevances appraisals ○ Implications appraisals ○ Coping poitential appraisals ○ Normative significance appraisals TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF STRESS AND COPING ● ● ● ● HISTORICAL THEORIES OF EMOTION JAMES-LANGE THEORY ● ● Expression → feeling ○ Eg. frowning causes sadness Facial feedback hypothesis = emotions result from facial expressions even when expressions are unrelated to environment ○ Study: Jokes found funnier when smiling with pen in mouth ■ Not reproducible, only when NOT recorded ● LAZARUS’ CORE RELATIONAL THEMES CANNON-BARD THEORY ● Psychological change to the thalamus → emotion ○ Eg. frowning does not cause my sadness. I frown and am sad at the same time. oping is a transaction of person and environment C Problem-focused coping: aims to alter the problem causing distress ○ Apprasises the situation as controllable ○ Eg. Planning, acting, instrumental social support ○ Personality: higher CEA Emotion-focused coping: regulating emotional responses to problem ○ Apprasises the situation as uncontrollable ○ Eg. wishful thinking, self-blame, positive appraisal, seeking social support ○ Persoanilty: higher N, low CA Avoidance: abandoning the situation or denying its existence ○ Avoids problem and emotions ○ Apprasises the situation as uncontrollable ○ Eg. Distraction, behavioural avoidance ○ Personailty: higher N, lower C Stressor → primary appraisal (importance) → secondary appraisal (controllability) → coping response ○ Strategy-fit hypothesis = coping is more effective coping strategy fits level of controllability ● One core appraisal captures each distinct emotion ○ Not included: ■ Interest/curiosity → novelty SCHACTER-SINGER’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY ● hysiological experience and arousal → attribution of P arousal to physiological state → emotion ○ Eg. I feel sad because I feel that sensation and I attribute this to the environment ○ Involvesappraisal PSYC2017 16 MODAL MODEL OF EMOTION REGULATION ● ● ● ● S ituation → attention → appraisal → response Emotions can be regulated continuously or unconsciously at each point along the process of a response ○ Intrinsic regulation = Regulate MY emotions ○ Extrinsic regulation = Regulate OTHERS emotions Varying goals of emotional regulation ○ Hedonic goals = to feel better ○ Counter-hedonic goals = to feel worse ○ Intrumental goals ■ Task-related ■ Social goals ● Avoid conflict ● Arouse empathy ● Strengthen relationships Model is a heuristic ○ Movement occurs between levels ○ Rarely meet need for self actualisation ■ Always a motivator ○ Can be motivated by 2 needs at the same time ○ Lack of satisfaction → psycholgical ill health SELF-ACTUALISATION ● ● Regulation occurs by process model of emotion regulation ○ Each stage requires perception, valuation and action 1. Identification of the need to regulate 2. Selection of a process 3. Implementation 4. Monitor ● ● S elf-actualisation = full use and exploitation of talents, capacities and potentialities Characteristics of self-actualistion people ○ But problems with sampling ○ Important: all experienced the “peak experience” Current ideas: ○ Higher POI scores related with self actualisation ○ ‘Resilience’ rather than self actualisation HUMANISM PERSONALITY ● ● umanistic psychology = subjective experience and H accounts ○ More optimistic, about person’s future potential ○ Not predetermined by environment ○ Person is actively in charge of their own fate rather than passive recipients ○ Focus on the healthy person reaching for higher values and goals Tealiological approach = personality develops by pulling towards goals rather than a pushing environment ○ Opposite to determinism EVALUATION AND AMENDMENTS ● MARSLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS ● T o focus on B (higher-level or growth or being) needs (ie. self actualisation, truth and goodness) they must first satisfy on D (lower-level or deficit)needs (ie. safety, self eestem, love and belong) ○ Need for satisfaction = motivation ■ Also a theory of motivation PSYC2017 ● Missing: ○ C lear distinction between need for self esteem from others and ‘self’ esteem ○ Competence level between safety and love/belongingness ○ People can have fully, partially and unsatisfied needs at the same time ■ How do we determine most important partially filled need? Need to eradicate pyramid hierarchy format ○ Rather, a flow diagram like above 17 CARL ROGER’S THEORY ● ● ● T heory based on clinical experience Your individual experience is your reality, it's not what others think of you, it's what you think of yourself ○ Reality is private Client-centred Therapy ○ Therapist indirectly assesses private world ○ You personally have resources to alter psychology ■ You do the change, psychologist facilitates that change ○ Psychologist needs: ■ Congruence (genuineness and honesty) ■ Empathy ■ Unconditional positive regard SKINNER’S OPERANT CONDITIONING ● Differences to Watson ○ Behaviours are voluntary ○ Environment provides occasion for behaviour ○ Considered role of thought ■ Thoughts are second to environment ○ Private events ■ Remembering ■ Emotional reactions REINFORCERS CONSTITUENTS OF SELF ● ● ● S elf-concept = perceived aspects of self Ideal-self = view of self one wishes to be Go to therapy when there is incongruence/disconnect between self-concept and ideal-self ○ Can lead to depression or low self-esteem, alcoholism ● ● Behaviour must occur before reinforcer ○ Reinforcer should be contingent and contiguous of the response Reinforcer questions: ○ How do we “know” if a stimulus is reinforcing ○ Reinforcer works backwards in time (impacting memory rather than behaviour?) ○ Where is the initial reason to act BEHAVIOURISM PERSONALITY ● ● ● ● E volutionary continuity: human and animal behaviour are different in complexity Reductionism: can reduce everything to the nervous system Determinism: everything is caused by the environment Empiricism: objective measures WATSON’S CLASSICAL CONDITIONING ● ● ● ● ● ersonality = learned habit systems P Emotions = acquired conditioned reflexes Environment —> behaviour Little Albert B Study: Watson and Rayner ○ Problems: ■ case study ■ subjective Evaluation: ○ People aren’t just a blank slate ■ Genetic component ○ Biological limitation to models (animals vs humans) PSYC2017 BANDURA’S SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY ● ● ● Differences to skinner ○ Cognition, behaviour and environment interact ■ cognition is most important ○ Responses can be learned by observing ○ A self system acts on the environment and behaviour Previously social learning theory Integrates: ○ Psychoanalysis (1st force) ○ Behaviourism (2nd force) ○ Humanism (3rd force) 18 ● Importance of cognitive processes ○ Reinforcement cognitively mediated ■ Reinforcement is reinforcing because you decide that it is ○ Observational learning can’t be explain by behaviourism ○ Meta-cognition and agency ● ● RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM ● ● ● ● omplex makeup of personal, environmental and C behaviour factors (each weighing differently) ○ Environment (E): physical and social ○ Personality (P): cognitive emotional systems ○ Behaviour (B): individual behaviour Skinner had B and E, Bandura added P to mediate relationship Usually measured correlationally ○ Need to manipulate to do causational Factories are regulated by and regulate each other ○ Awareness of this interaction can change nature of interaction ● Bandura’s 4-step model of observational model (+1) 1. Attend 2. Remember 3. Reproduce 4. Motivation due to reinforcement of accurate reproduction 5. (something you haven't done before) Negative behaviours can be learnt socially ○ Aggression (Eg. Bobs doll experiment) High order behaviours can be socially learnt ○ Moral judgements (Eg. Moral judgement change persisted 2 weeks after adult model was no longer present) BANDURA’S SELF-EFFICACY ● ● Self-efficacy = perceived abilities in a particular area ○ Appraisal of capabilities ○ Level of confidence impacts behaviour ○ Domain/context specific ■ Scale must be specific to context ■ Eg. self-efficacy in tennis ○ Determinant and constitute of personality Personal factor in reciprocal determinism = self-efficacy SOURCES OF SELF-EFFICACY ● ● ● P E High self-efficacy Low self-efficacy esponsive R environment S uccessful behavioural outcomes bserving success O results in more underperformance nresponsive U environment Increase efforts to improve environment or seek another environment iscouraged to the D point to stopping ● ● OUTCOMES OF SELF-EFFICACY ● OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING ● ● Factors that determine if we learn from a model ○ Characteristics of the model ■ High status ■ Competent ■ Powerful ○ Characteristics of observer ■ Lack skill, power ○ Consequences of behaviour ■ Greater value that the observed places on behaviour → more likely to learn behaviour PSYC2017 eighting is different for different people W Mastery experiences/performance accomplishments ○ In obtainable steps (not too much too soon) ■ If you fail too soon you'll give up Vicarious experiences ○ Watching someone succeed Social/verbal persuasion Physiological and emotional states High perceived self-efficacy ○ Greater cognitive resourcefulness ○ Strategic flexibility ○ Less anxiety ○ Set more challenging goals ○ Recover quickly from setbacks ○ More venturesome ○ Effectiveness in managing environment Lower perceived self-efficacy ○ Avoid difficult tasks ○ Give up quickly ○ Slow to recover sense of efficacy after failures ○ Victim to stress and depression ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY ● ● ● anage work better M More persistent Less likely to reject correct solutions prematurely 19 ● ● ○ etter predictor of overall performance than cognitive B ability alone Practical experiences create strong sense of academic self-efficacy ● PERFORMANCE SELF-EFFICACY ● ● ● ost correlated to WAM/GPA M So is effort regulation and academic self-efficacy Hehancers: ○ Quality teachers ○ Feedback ○ Manage stress levels igh prejudice: Consciously do NOT inhibit H negative response ■ Beliefs and negative stereotypes are NOT in conflict Contradictingassociationview: Lenore and brown ○ High prejudice people show more automatic stereotyping than low ○ Conclusion: depends on what we are measuring and how we measure it COPING SELF-EFFICACY ● Posttraumatic stress recovery ○ Believing you can recover —> recovery RACIAL PREJUDICE ● ● ● ● ● S tereotypes= members of an out group possess certain characteristics or traits ○ Cognitive efficiency strategy ○ But oversimplifying —> problematic ○ Learnt over time ○ Prejudice and discrimination can result Prejudice= a (usually) negativeattitudetowardsmembers of a group based solely upon their membership in that group Discrimination= negativebehaviourdirected towardsan individual based on their membership in a group Theautomatic-controlled continuum(for stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination) ○ Potential moderators: ■ Motivation ■ Context ■ Age ■ Cognitive load Prejudice is intergroup: not unidirectional ○ Much of the current literature is unidirectional ○ Not focusing on reducing prejudice in one group, rather bringing groups together DEVINE’S DISSOCIATION MODEL ● ● ● DOVIDIO’S META-ANALYSIS ● ssociation between stereotypes, prejudice and A discrimination (meta-analysis) ○ Stereotype <—> prejudice = .25 ○ Stereotype <—> discrimination = .16 ○ Prejudice <—> discrimination = .32 TYPES OF RACISM ● ● ● Blatant (overt) racism ○ Strong negative feelings Subtle (covert) racism ○ Absence of positive feelings ○ “Socially acceptable” ○ Aim to appear not racist Aversive racism ○ Proposed by Dovidio ○ Consciously advocate egalitarian views ○ Unconscious and unintentional subtle racism ○ Will adhere to social norms to appear not racist to others or to themself MEASURING RACIAL PREJUDICE evelopmental stage 1: early learning of cultural D stereotypes ○ Automatic/unconscious processes Developmental stage 2: evaluation of stereotype validity in respect to own beliefs ○ Controlled/conscious processes High vs low prejudice people hold similar negative stereotypes ○ Low prejudice: Consciously inhibit negative response ■ Dissociation between beliefs and negative stereotypes PSYC2017 20 ● ● ● ● McConahay’s explicit measures (questionnaires) ○ Modern racism scale (MRS) ○ Old-fashioned racism scale (OFRS) ○ Limitations of the MRS ■ Blatant ■ Outdated ■ Confound between prejudice and political conservatism Cultural issues scale (CIS) ○ Recognition of seriousness of different forms of racism (via rating different events) Greenwald ○ Implicit = the individual is unaware of their negative attitude ○ How to measure unawareness? ■ Little evidence people are actually unaware Fazio and Olson ○ Time reaction ■ Slow due to people finding it difficult to consciously control their responses ■ Linked to task not attitude ○ Problem: Lack of control and unawareness are different ○ Solution: Implicit measure (not implicit prejudice) IMPLICIT MEASURES ● ● ● ● ● Sentence completion task ○ Eg. he got an A: ■ “Because the test was easy” black ■ “Because he studies” white RT latency task ○ Pair each race with positive/negative adjectives ○ Reaction time measured ■ Faster to pair positive word with white than black ■ No difference for blatantly negative words Eyeblink response ○ Physiological measure ○ Blink increase = negative response ○ Blink decrease = positive response Shooter bias paradigm ○ Reaction time and error rate measured ■ Faster to shoot armed targets when they are black ■ Not shoot unarmed targets when white Priming techniques ○ Reaction time measured ○ Priming with a face PSYC2017 ● Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures unconscious attitudes ○ Choose white/black race to go with pleasant/unpleasant and vise versa ○ Compatible (fast response) trials ■ white/pleasant, black/unpleasant ○ Incompatible (slow response) trials ■ white/unpleasant, black/pleasant ○ IAT difference score (ms) = mean latency for incompatible - mean latency for compatible ■ Higher = greater preference for whites ■ 40% of blacks have pro-white bias ○ Criticism ■ Might be measuring peoples learnt associations and stereotypes ■ People are generally aware of their attitudes, thus, no unconscious ■ Susceptible to deliberate faking and strategic processing ■ Poor behavioural predictability and test-retest reliability ■ Might be a measured of familiarity rather than prejudice ■ No real theory underpinning it SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS ● T endency to report answers they believe are more socially acceptable ○ More prevalent in explicit measures ○ Less for implicit as usually reaction time bases MODE MODEL ● otivation and opportunity as determinants (MODE) M model = motivation and opportunity to control prejudice moderate the attitude-behaviour and implicit-explicit measure relationship ○ Fazio and Olson ● issociation between implicit and explicit measures may D occur because ○ Explicit ■ Requires conscious judgement ■ Affected by motivation and opportunity to control prejudice ○ Implicit measures 21 ■ ● ependency + hatred of parents → D displacement of these unacceptable impulses into hostility towards minority groups Limitation ■ Correlational data ■ L ess affected by motivation and opportunity to control prejudice Implicit and explicit measureswill correlatewhen individual haslowmotivation and opportunity to control prejudice ○ Eg. when political correctness is not important ○ Prejudice is likely to predict behaviour ○ CAUSES AND CORRELATES OF RACISM THEORIES OF RACIAL PREJUDICE ORIGIN ● ● ● ● ● ● Evolutionary basis ○ Forming groups help with survival ○ Trust members in our group ○ Limitations ■ Lack of testability ■ May like some out groups Social identity theory ○ We have an individual and social (group) identity ○ Motivated to maintain positive group identify to protect identify self-esteem and protect ingroup ○ Most ingroup/outgroup categorisation occurs automatically ○ Limitations ■ Favouring the ingroup doesn’t mean you dislike the outgroup ■ Not good at explaining why low status group discriminated against high status Cognitive ability ○ Cognitive ability is linked with prejudice and strength of connection is underpinned by right-wing ideologies ○ Lower cognitive ability = right-wing ideologies ■ Less complexity, increased perceived control, resistance to social change and preservation of societal traditions ■ Avoiding uncertainty and threat ○ Limitations ■ Correlational data ■ How do manipulate cognitive ability and right-wing ideologies Social cognitive theory ○ Allport: children of authoritarian parents were more likely to develop prejudice attitudes ○ Bandura: they can learn these attitudes via observation learning ○ High prejudice in young children, then tends to decline due to social-cognitive development ○ The family socialisation model of racism (White and Gleizman) ■ Determined by level of cohesion (closeness) and type of attitude Social and physical segregation (inter group contact) The authoritarian personality ○ Right wing authoritarianism is strongly linked to prejudice PSYC2017 PREJUDICE REDUCTION STRATEGIES REDUCING AUTOMATIC EXPRESSION ● ● ● Repeated exposure to positive minority group exemplars ○ Exposed to counter stereotypical stimuli to alter associations (black = good rather than bad) and reduce automatic bias ■ IAT reduction in automatic bias was temporary (24 hours) Repeated exposure to unrelated minority group characteristics ○ Make race unhelpful for decision-making to encourage unbiased responding ■ Eg. blacks and whites equally likely to have a gun ■ Results: attending to race impaired performance but required more trials to get effect ■ IAT reduction in automatic bias was temporary (24 hours) Need continuous positive or unrelated characteristics exposure to sustain bias reduction LONG-TERM REDUCTION OF AUTOMATIC PREJUDICE ● L ong-term reduction in the automatic expression of racial bias (Devine et al., 2012) ○ Completed IAT 3 times and explicit measures ○ Training program ■ Stereotype replacement ■ Counter-stereotype imaging ■ Individuation ■ Perspective taking ■ Increasing opportunities for contact ○ Results: ■ Reductions in implicit bias which were sustained to week 8 22 ■ No reduction in explicit measures ● No impact on conscious biases ● But greater concern about racial discrimination COGNITIVE RE-CATEGORISATION ● ● REDUCING CONTROLLED EXPRESSION ● rejudice reduction strategies less likely to be beneficial P for people with extremely high or low levels of prejudice Common ingroup identity strategy (assimilation) ○ Eg. First Nations + Anglo = Australian Dual identity strategy (integration) ○ Subgroup identity and common ingroup identity ○ Don’t need to relinquish who you are, your differences ○ Eg. First Nations + Anglo —> differences (subgroup) and commonalities (common ingroup) + Australian environment (shared) DIRECT INTERGROUP CONTACT DIEC PROGRAM ● ● ● llport’s Contact Hypothesis: interaction between racial A groups can reduce prejudice ○ ‘Facilitating’ conditions ■ Equal status ■ Cooperative rather than competitive ■ Common goal ■ Support from authority to establish norms of acceptance ■ Time (Pettigrew added 5th condition) ○ Stronger correlation between high contact and low prejudice when Allport’s conditions are met (r = -.29) Research studies ○ Sherif’s created conflict then a superordinate (shared) goal which required working together ■ → reduced conflict ○ Aronson and Gonzalez “jigsaw cooperative classroom” reduced prejudice when they had to work together to solve a puzzle ○ White looked at friendship dyads, more asian friends meant less prejudice What happens when direct contact is not possible due to physical and psychological barriers? ○ Indirect contact INDIRECT INTERGROUP CONTACT ● ● Extended contact ○ Knowing ingroup members that have outgroup friends and learn positive attributes ■ → lower outgroup prejudice ○ Reading about positive outgroup members ■ → more positive attitudes ● Even in young children Imagined contact ○ “Imagine meeting a stranger that is an outgroup member and you learn some interesting and unexpected things about them, list these things” ■ → Decrease anxiety, increased future contact, reduce prejudice ○ Does not produce long term effect ● ● LONG-TERM REDUCTION OF CONTROLLED PREJUDICE ● ● T o determine causes of attitudes and behaviours Little current literature because of money and publishing fast SOCIAL INFLUENCE ● ● S ocial influence = compliance + conformity + obedience Tactics of social influence ○ Reciprocation ○ Liking ○ Commitment and consistency ○ Authority ○ Scarcity ○ Social validation ○ Unity COMPLIANCE ● ● ● PSYC2017 DIEC: Integration of Dual identity and electronic-E-contact ○ 9 week classroom intervention in both minority and majority high school students ■ Indirect, via the internet chat room ○ Long term interception measures ■ 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months ○ Involves cooperation and superordinate/common goal Results: ○ Short-term: decreased outgroup anxiety and increased knowledge ○ Long-term: decreased outgroup bias for Muslim students ompliance = change in beliefs, attitudes or behaviour as a C result of external pressure People often respond automatically to compliance requests ○ More compliant when a reason is given (because…) Heuristics have power over our actions, causing us to comply 23 RECIPROCATION ● ● ● ● We feel obliged to repay what other give to us ○ Even when favour is unwanted/unrequested ■ to build relationships ○ Even when value or domain of favours are different ■ Feels uncomfortable to be indebted to someone ■ to not be rejected by the group Field experiment: sending Christmas cards to strangers ○ 20% of cards back ○ Receivers felt the urge to reciprocate Lab experiment: favour of coke then return favour back of paying for tickets ○ Liking also affected amount of tickets bought ○ Tickets bought regardless of liking when initial favous done ETHICAL: give information or concessions first CONCESSIONS ● ● The door-in-the -face-tactic ○ If someone makes a concession, we should reciprocate by making a concession too ■ Eg. coming back with a second offer that is lower, we should go higher to reciprocate or say yes ○ Socially beneficial to accept concession ○ Compliance higher using this tactic The that’s-not-all-tactic ○ Make request then immediately offer bonuses or discounts ■ Viewed as a concession ○ Reciprocate by buying ● SIMILARITY ● ● ● ● ● ● eople tend to comply with people they know and like P Factors influencing liking ○ Physical attractiveness ○ Similarity ○ Contact and cooperation ○ Conditioning and association ETHICAL: genuine similarities and complements PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS ● ● ● e tend to like things and people that are beautiful W Halo effect = when one trait is used to make a judgement about someone as a whole ○ Experiment: attractiveness → competent, moral, smart, sociable, etc. ○ “What is beautiful is good” stereotype Biassed attributions ○ Example: a beautiful person does something… ■ Good → internal attribution ■ Bad → external attribution PSYC2017 e like similar others because of similar qualities, W validation of beliefs and smooth interactions Field experiment: More willing to give a dime to make a call when dressed similarly (as a hippie or not) ○ Same for signing a petition Lab experiment: more likely to critique long essay when same birthday Manipulators try to create link with us (real or fake) The chameleon effect = Mimicry ○ Field experiment: mimicking order back to customer —> bigger tip CONTACT AND COOPERATION ● ● ● LIKING ● ● Attractiveness effect on… ○ Work ■ Earn more money ■ More likely to be hired ○ Politics ■ Receive more votes ○ Criminal justice system ■ Avoid jail time ■ Plastic surgery —> less 2nd sentence ■ Jury will rule in favour ● ore exposure to a person, more positively we feel M towards them ○ The mere exposure effect ○ Exception when initial negative opinion Stronger when people are unaware of exposure ○ Lab experiment: subliminally exposed to people, agreed more with person (ie. persuasion) Exposure effect on… ○ Politics ■ More exposure → more votes ○ Advertising ■ More platforms → more sales Cooperation can result in feelings of liking ○ Ben Franklin effect = Friends though cooperative act ○ Cooperation can be magnified CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION ● e like people who are associated with positive feelings W and events ○ Classical conditioning UNITY ● Shared identity of the manipulator and the target ○ Any strong and deep identities ○ Examples: ■ Family ■ Ethnicity ■ Region 24 ● ● ■ Social identity Allows for more influence ○ But varying evidence findings ETHICAL: genuine shared social identities ● ● eactance theory = when freedoms restricted, react by R wanting the item more than before Lab experiment: change in quantity in cookies → more favourable ○ Social demand for cookies CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL COMPLIANCE ● ● ● umans desire to be consistent with actions, statements H and beliefs ○ Relatively efficient heuristic ○ Field experiment: consistent with statement saying they would to volunteer The foot-in-door- tactic ○ Tendency to comply with a large request after agreeing to a smaller request first ■ To appear consistent ■ Otherwise possible cognitive dissonance ■ Self perception theory: act to maintain self-image ○ Field experiment: more likely to put big sign after saying yes to small sign The low-ball tactic ○ Two-step technique ■ Step 1: secrues agreement ■ Step 2: changes request ● Eg. revealing hidden costs ● ● ● Guilt = a non-ethical principle ○ Make people feel guilty for not complying with you Humans often operate mindlessly ○ Thus can be manipulated, often with several simultaneous techniques ETHICAL: genuine scarcity SOCIAL COGNITION ● andur’s social cognitive theory: triadic reciprocal B determinism model AUTHORITY ● ● e tend to comply with experts or authority to help us W decide how to behave ○ When we feel ambivalent or in a ambiguous situation ○ Informational social influence ETHICAL: establish credentials CORE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL COGNITION ● SOCIAL VALIDATION ● ● ● e look to other people for cues on how we should think, W behave, feel ○ When we feel ambivalent or in a ambiguous situation ○ Actions of others validate our own ○ Normative social influence Field experiment: reusing towels “help save planet” vs “others will reuse” ○ More towel reuse with social validation claim Quantity = quality heuristic ○ Eg. number of people in a cafe, tip jar, best-selling book, laugh tracks, social media likes ● ● ● Attention ○ Limited attention capacity ○ Environment and people influence our focus of attention —> influences impressions of ourselves and others Interpretation ○ Social behaviours can be interpreted in different ways depending of various factors ■ Eg. Gender, upbringing, region, political views Judgement ○ Involves uncertainty ○ Best we can do with the information we have to work with Memory ○ Memories of our judgements, attention, interpretation and general experience can influence our judgements SCARCITY GOALS OF SOCIAL COGNITION ● What is rare is valuable ○ Short supply = desirable ○ Items or time PSYC2017 ● Competing goals ○ Mental efficiency ■ Good enough decisions with little effort 25 ○ ● COGNITIVE STYLES ● ● ● ● ● ○ Accurate judgements ■ To avoid potential costly mistakes ○ Protection of self-image As goals change, people develop different cognitive styles to achieve them onsistency seeker: attempts to maintain consistency C across behaviours and cognition ○ Eg. Cognitive dissonance theory ■ Dissonance created when inconsistent ■ Negative drive state: drive to change cognition and behaviour to solve dissonance ○ Research shows tolerance to inconsistency in our lives, little motivation to avoid dissonance ■ Only high on preference for consistency (PFC) support consistency seeker Naive scientist ○ Attribution theory: people are motivated by need to forcoherent viewof the world and gain control of the environment ○ We like a predictable world where we can attribute behaviour tointernal/dispositionalor external/situationalcauses ○ What to understand causes of theirs and others behaviours ■ We gather evidence to tests a hypothesis ○ Every effortful and rational Cognitive miser: cognitively efficient, problem solving in the most simple ways ○ Limited cognitive resources and demand for fast and efficient processing of information ○ Useheuristics(shortcuts) but these may case errors in judgements ■ Stereotypes ■ Confirmation bias ● To confirm existing beliefs ● Causes echo chambers and filter bubbles (eg. on social media) Motivated tactician: approach changes depending on motivation and situation whether to use effortful or efficient processes ○ Choosebetween default/automatic state (cognitive miser) or more controlled when judgements are important (naive scientist) ○ Requires significant self-regulation ■ Requires cognitive processing Activated actor: considers the role of theenvironmentin behaviour ○ Goal-based actions are not entirely deliberate, but situationally activated ○ Environment contains cues that affect how we response, even if not conscious of influence PSYC2017 nlike the cognitive miser, we don't ignore U information to save energy, this information highly influences our decisions AUTOMATIC NONCONSCIOUS PROCESSES ● ● T houghts, feelings and behaviours influenced by factors we are unaware of or without intent ○ Priming ○ Implicit bias ○ Stereotyping ○ Confirmation bias Features of automatic processing ○ Unintentional ○ Unawareness ○ Uncontrollable ○ Inefficiency PRIMING ● ● ● riming = exposure to a stimuli which influences P judgements and subsequent responses, entirely out of awareness ○ Prime causes activation of social representations (schema) which activate thinking and behaviour ■ Activation of nodes Types of priming ○ Supraliminal: awareness of stimulus ■ Eg. Word fragment and sentence completion tasks ■ Social, affective and behavioural priming ○ Subliminal: no awareness of stimuli ■ Millisecond presentation of stimuli ■ Social, affective and behavioural priming Social priming in making judgements ○ Priming influences ambiguous information ■ Eg. reckless or adventurous schema primed → ambiguous person → rating of person ○ Other variables (eg. schema of gender) can affect priming SCRAMBLED WORD VS WALKING SPEED ● ● Bargh et al. experiment ○ Participants could not establish link between word scramble task and walking speed ○ Significant difference between prime and no prime Doyen et al. replication ○ More participants (high power) ○ Less objective; used automated timers rather than experimenter ■ Expectation of researcher plays a role in walking speed ○ No significant difference 26 ○ ?
