PSYC2017 Lectures 18-22 PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by BrighterWilliamsite5570
Tags
Summary
These notes cover various psychological theories, including Carl Rogers' theory, Skinner's Operant Conditioning, Behaviorism, Watson's Classical Conditioning, Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, and more. The document appears to be lecture notes rather than an exam paper.
Full Transcript
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...
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
