PSYC2017 Personality and Social Psychology Lectures PDF

PSYC2017 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY SEMESTER 2 | 2023 | HANNAH WOODBRIDGE ○ PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS ● Psychological measurement involves assigning numbers to a person to faithfully represent their attributes ○ INTERPRETATION IMPORTANCE ● To make an indirect assessment of latent attributes...

PSYC2017 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY SEMESTER 2 | 2023 | HANNAH WOODBRIDGE ○ PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS ● Psychological measurement involves assigning numbers to a person to faithfully represent their attributes ○ INTERPRETATION IMPORTANCE ● To make an indirect assessment of latent attributes ● Latent psychological concepts = unobservable ○ Eg. depression, anxiety, personality ● To make decisions about individuals ○ Eg. education, employment, stability ● ● ● ● ● Measurements are precise and accurate Assesses a single attribute Psychological constructs exist ○ Concept (discovery) vs construct (creation) Attribute can be represented by numbers, similar to physical properties ○ Problem: what is neuroticism squared? Constructs are stable across time and place and have predictable variability ● ● QUALITIES SAMPLING ● ● ● Supposed to represent population Avoids systematic and non-systematic biases Issues with non-respondents/dropouts/volunteers /response rate ● Methods of scoring ○ Objective ■ Eg. standardised questionnaires ○ Subjective/assessor’s judgement ■ Eg. vignette, projective testing Standardisation = transforming scale scores into universal indexes (Eg. IQ) ○ Used for comparison between individuals, groups and other scales PSYC2017 Validity = degree to which a claim is correct ○ Does an instrument measure what it claims to measure? ○ The appropriateness, usefulness or meaningfulness of test scores and their interpretation ■ Eg. ‘quality of life’ measure Validity is affected by levels of biases or statistical errors in the test construction and conclusions ○ Objects studies are abstract and latent constructs CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ● ● SCORING ● Are the observed attributes real? ○ Cultural biases ○ Procedural biases ○ Interpretation biases Does testing help or hurt? ○ Labelling ○ Not a holistic approach External validity VALIDITY ASSUMPTIONS ● ● ● Determine population norms (normative data) ■ Ie. population attributes ■ Norm has limitations (eg. sample size and type) Examples: Z-scores and t-scores Construct validity = the degree to which constructs have a coherent theoretical foundation ○ Relevant to internal and external validity Operationalisation = the process of generating construct or variable (operational) definitions that allow for empirical assessment ○ Eg. mental health operationalised by presence of symptoms outlines in the DSM-V FACTORIAL VALIDITY ● Factorial validity = type of construct validity focused on the measurement instrument ○ Relavent to only internal validity 1 CONVERGENT VALIDITY ● ● Convergent validity = type of construct validity which demonstrates high levels of correlation between: ○ Items (individual questions) that make up the same or related constructs ○ Other tests that measure the same or related constructs Example (anxiety): other questions in the test for anxiety/other tests for anxiety DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY ● ● ● ● Criterion-related validity = degree to which test correlates to (or predicts) a theoretical representation of the construct ○ Method of assessing validity ○ Correlation calculated by correlation coefficient ○ Main types: ■ Concurrent validity: criterion is in the present (eg. school maths average vs current students maths scores) ■ Predictive validity: the criterion is in the future (eg. aptitude test vs. future job performance) Example (anxiety): future mental health issues/undergoing current treatment for anxiety Structural validity = Scores represent the content area they claim to represent ○ A strurally valid assessments represent the whole domain ■ Eg. questions from all modules in the final exam to represent the whole unit CEILING/FLOOR EFFECTS ● Disriminant (divergent) validity = opposite of convergent validity, lower levels of correlation between: ○ Items (individual questions) that make up unrelated constructs ○ Other tests that assess unrelated constructs Example (anxiety): a test for cognitive ability CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY ● STRUCTURAL VALIDITY The ceiling/floor effects = the problem of indiscriminability ○ no meaningful viability, everyone is scoring the same ■ problem with questions or problem with scoring system RELIABILITY ● Reliability = the degree of stability of measurement output across time (temporal) or context ○ Absence of fluctuation that are unaccounted for (eg. by random error) ○ If you can explain variance = reliable CLASSICAL TEST THEORY (CTT) ● ● ● Classical test theory (CTT) ○ People (objects) have a true score on a construct ○ Errors are assumed to be random X (observed score) = T (true score) + E (error) Variance = measure of change ○ σ 2 𝑋 = σ 2 𝑇 + σ 2 𝐸 Rough estimate of reliability = reliability index (r) INTERNAL VS EXTERNAL 2 2 ■ r =σ ■ Proportion of variance 𝑇 / σ 𝑋 EXTERNAL VALIDITY ISSUES WITH CCT ● External validity = degree to which results can be generalised across different contexts ○ Ecological validity = the degree to which test score reflect the natural world ● Issues with CTT ○ Does the construct exist? ○ How stable is the true score? ○ What is random error? INTERNAL VALIDITY RELIABLE MEASUREMENT ● Internal validity = degree of confidence about causal relations between the measured constructs ○ Naturalistic designs = have good EV but bad IV ○ Experimental designs = have good IV but bad EV CONTENT VALIDITY ● ● SE of measurement ○ The range of observed scores which the true score would be expected to be ○ 95% confidence interval ■ +/- 1 SE = 88.3% sure within that interval Content validity = at face value, the items appear to be related to the construct in question PSYC2017 2 SOURCES OF MEASUREMENT ERROR INDIVIDUAL ERROR ● ● Idiosyncratic ○ Mood ○ Fatigue ○ Memory ○ Language Generic ○ Faking questionnaire ○ Self-deception ○ Acquiescence ■ yes to everything ○ Nay-saying bias ■ no for everything ○ Midpoint/extreme responses ■ Floor/ceiling effects ○ Random responses INTER-RATER RELIABILITY ● Inter-rater reliability = raters score similarly for the scale, instrument or construct in question ○ % of agreement (Cohen’s kappa) FACTOR ANALYSIS ● ● ● Factor analysis = advanced multivariate statistical techniques used to uncover latent constructs (dimesion, factor or component) from a set of observed attributes ○ Make the data smaller and more meaningful ○ Holistic assessment tool ○ High correlation between items = they are potentially relate to the same factor Factor loading = the correlation between the item and the factor (good = above .4) Example application of psychometric knowledge: ○ Profiling and psychobiography ○ Psychobiography and psychohistory MEASUREMENT TYPES OF FACTOR ANALYSIS ● ● ● Content-related ○ Lack of clarity ○ Biased questions Format-related ○ Arranged in a particular way Administration-related ○ Distracting setting RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ● ● INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY ● Internal consistency reliability = the degree of consistency of items that measure the same construct ○ Cronbach’s alpha (between 0 and 1) TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY ● Test-retest reliability = assesses the stability of test scores over time (temporal reliability) ○ Same test administered to the same people at different times ○ Determined by ■ Pearson correlation (but if increase by same amount each time, correlation is still 1) ■ T-test ISSUES WITH TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY ● Issues: ○ ○ ○ Optimal time-interval Drop-outs Temporal instability of constructs PSYC2017 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) = used to identify or create a possible latent construct ○ Principle components analysis (PCA) is NOT a type of EFA ■ assumes that all variance in the items can be explained by the same latent construct Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) = used to confirm or validate an already hypothesised, theorised or identified latent construct TYPES OF FACTORS ● ● Orthogonal = dimensions that are considered to be independent from each other ○ Eg. neurotisism and extraversion Oblique = dimensions that are considered to be related to each other ○ Eg. fluid intelligence and crystalised intelligence ASSUMPTIONS ● ● Factorability = the mathematical and conceptual suitability of an item to be included in a FA model ○ Eg. extraversion is not factorable within a set of neurotisicm items ○ Bartlet’s test Simple structure = items form distinct factors (or spacial clusters), based on the degree of their associations ○ Strong incluster associations, but weak between cluster association ■ Exhibit high levels of convergence and discriminant validity ○ Sphericity is significant when all inter-item correlations are significantly different from zero 3 ○ Cross-loading (the opposite to simple structure) = cross over between factors ● ○ Tend to be orthogonal (independant) ○ They are finite dimensions Measued using psychometrics and statistics ○ Questionnaires, interview, life stories, brain scanes, twin studies etc. STRUCTURE OF PERSONALITY ● ● Sphericty is significant when all inter-tem correlations are significantly different from zero ● ● ROTATION ● ● Orthogonal rotation = rotation of the axis 90 degrees, to the point which the axis fit the factors ○ Resulting factors are uncorrelated ● Oblique rotation = creates lines of best fit for each of the factors ○ Resulting factors are correlated ○ More complicated method GORDON ALLPORT TRAITS THEORY ● ● RETAINING FACTORS ● ● The comprehensibility rule = retain factors that are meaningful, clearly interpretable (valid) and measurable (reliable) Kasier criteria, scree plot, joliffe criterion, variance explained rule and parallel analysis are all methods for determining the number of factors to keep in a factor analysis ● ● Personaility = organised psychobiologcal characteristics that influence ones behavioir, attitudes, motivations and psychology ○ Probabilistic tendencies (more likely to do something) Shapers of personality ○ Biology and genetics ○ Evolution ○ Environment Personality is made up of dimesions PSYC2017 Personaility (Allport) = “what a human really is… a dynamic system of traits” ○ Not a construct, personality is real ■ It is concrete and physically observable ■ Heuristic realism = there is a real universe and we just have some access to it Traits (Allport) = neuropsychic structures that dispose a person towards specific kinds of actions ○ Rooted in the nervous system ○ Innate and environmental ○ Traits make diverse stimuli functionally equivalent ■ Making someone respond the same way to different situations APPROACHES PERSONALITY ● Traits (charcteristics) = general dispositions people possess which can be inferred from their behaviour ○ All humans have all traits to some intensity and importance ○ Structured; dimensitonally and hiearchaically arranged ○ Relatively stable over time but do drift as traits evolve/develop Disposition = more contextual than a trait State = a trait at any given time ○ Eg. mood = states of emotive trait Temperament = characteristic reaction pattern present from an early age (biological) ○ Eg. Calm, angry ○ Fuzzy between temperament and traits ● ● Nomothetic approach = attempts to establish universal laws Idiographic approach = attempts to identify unique combination of traits which charcterisies an individual ○ Eg. psychologists use this in practice ○ Allport took this approach as he emphasiesd the uniqueness of the indivudal 4 TYPES OF TRAITS ● ● ● Allport identified over 4500 traits and 3 main groups ○ Cardinal = pervasive, outstanding, and dominating traits (meta-traits) that not all individuals possess ○ Central = the 5-10 traits that best describe an individual ○ Secondary = peripheral traits which are not always present Any trait can fall into any category, depends on its importance in the individuals life Nomothetic common traits (shared traits) ○ Universal norms ○ Group norms THE SELF ● ● PROS AND CONS TO THE THEORY PROS ● ● CONS ● ● Proprium (Alloport) = self (ego) ○ Integration of personal traits Stages of proprium development ○ Developing a sense of self ● ● MOTIVES ● ● ● Motives are NOT infantile motivation or unconscious needs (unlike Freud suggests) ○ Emphasis on the individual’s present state, current situation and feelings Functional autonomy = childhood has some influence on motives but does not directly influence your bahavious now Perseverative functional autonomy = motives that depend on a feedback mechanism or biochemical process resulting in the continuation of a behaviour ○ Eg. smoking Propriate functional autonomy = motives develop by an individual’s wishes or desired goals ○ Eg. interest in a musical instrument Personaility (Cattell) = the characteristics of the individual that allow for prediction of how they will behave in a given situation ○ Purely pragmatic, useful, practical Traits (Cattell) = the relatively stable and long-lasting building blocks of personality that posses predictive value ○ Environemental (environmental-mold traits) and gentic (constitutional traits) Multivariate abstract varience analysis (MAVA) ○ Developed MAVA based off heritability coefficients CLASSIFYING TRAITS ● ● ● ● PSYC2017 Actively ignored psychopathology (wanted to focus on everyday life instead) The identified traits are impractical when it comes to measurement and understanding ○ Never developed any standardized measurement RAYMOND CATTELL TRAITS THEORY ● ● Viewed humans as ration active agents (unlike Freudian determinism) ○ Freudian determinism suggests that you can't help things because of your childhood or unconscious desires Founder of academic field of personality Ability traits = what we use to reach our goals ○ Eg. intelligence, memory, talents Temperament traits = how we reach our goals ○ Eg. easygoing, anxious, layedback ○ Highly heritable Dynamic traits = why we want to reach our goals (motivation) ○ Eg. competitive, cooperative, ambitious ○ Heirarchically arranged in a dynamic lattice ■ Erg → sentiment → attitude ■ Attitudes = overt; expression of interest in things ■ Sentiments = complex; latent ● Eg. interests, values, religiosity ■ Metaergs = attitudes and sentiments ■ Ergs = innate drives Surface Traits = observable and directly measurable ○ Eg. shyness, cheerfulness ○ Cluster together and have high correlation 5 ● Source traits = latent traits ○ Clusters of surface traits ○ Eg. apprehension: doubt, worry, guilt, self-blame, insecurity SPECIFICATION EQUATION ● ● ● ● The Lexical approach to traits and personality = important traits will have a word encoded in language ○ Frequency of trait descriptor → importance of specific trait ○ Number of synonyms → importance of subtle differences ○ Cross-cultrual presence → universality of trait importance Cattell found less traits by elimination of synonyms ○ 171 traits ○ 36 surface traits ○ 16 source traits/domains (16 PF) ■ Each has 2 ends to the scale ■ Eg. reasoning: abstract vs concrete ■ Based of factor analysis (FA) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● L-data (life recorded data): behavioural records, mosly by peer-rating Q-data (questionarie data): can easily be maipulated T-data (test data): objective tests in standardised conditions Big-5: descriptions of behaviour via the lexical hypothesis Five factor model (FFM): traits are causal entities Costa and Mcrae found 5 domains (not 16, as proposed by Cattell) ○ Possible reasons: ■ Oblique vs orthogonal ■ Simple structure: an item should have a strong correlation to 1 factor and weak to all others The Big-5 Domains (personility primaries) ○ Openness ○ Conscientiousness ○ Extraversion ○ Agreeableness ○ Neuroticism Good temporal stability (test-retest) and internal consistency ○ Problem for temporal stability: If everybody score 2 at first then 5 later, the correlation is 1 NEUROTICISM ● ● SOURCES OF DATA ● Focus on practicality rather than cause of personality Inability to replicate the 16PF Reliance on FA and statistics Contriversal points of view about evolution and racism THE BIG-5 Cattell: personality develops continuously from birth to death Allport: personality develops in childhood and adultesense Freud (psychoanalytic theory): personality develops in infancy THE LEXICAL APPROACH ● ● ● ● ● Specification equation = how to predict an individuals behaviour in a given situation DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY ● CONS ● ● PROS AND CONS Neuroticism = emotional (in)stability ○ Eg. emotional control, stress, negative affectivity Common facets: ○ Anxiety ○ Anger-hostility ○ Depression ○ Self-consciousness ○ Vulnerability (to stress) Observed behavioural correlates of high N (associations): ○ Poor marital/relational functioning ○ Impaired performance ○ Mood disorders Heritability index = 0.31 variance explained by genes ○ EXTRAVERSION PROS ● ● ● ● ● Major contribution to personality and intelligence theories ○ As well as other areas of psychology Developed first holistic psychometric assessment of personality = questionnaires Propsed state-trait dichotomy Data gave rise to the 5-factor model of personility PSYC2017 ● Extraversion = the degree of social impact or engagement and positive affect Common facets: ○ Warmth ○ Activity ○ Excitement seeking ○ Enthusiasm ○ Cheerfulness ○ Assertiveness ○ Gregarious 6 ● ● Observed behavioral correlates of high E: ○ Ability to gain prominence in social organizations ○ Promiscuity ○ Accidents Heritability index = 0.36 ● Heritability index = 0.46 AGREEABLENESS ● ● ● ● Agreeableness = Maintaining positive relations with others ○ Eg. friendly compliance and conformity Common facets: ○ Trust ○ Straightforward ○ Altruism ○ Compliance (cooperation) ○ Modesty ○ Tender-minded (sympathy) Observed behavioural correlated of high A: ○ Conflict resolution ○ Greater social support ○ Low levels linked with psychopathy Heritability index = 0.28 CONSCIENTIOUSNESS ● ● ● ● Conscientiousnes = responsibility and will to achieve Common facets: ○ Competence ○ Order ○ Dutifulness ○ Achievement ○ Self-dicipline Observed behavioural correlates of high C: ○ Avoidance of risky behaviours ○ High academic achievement ○ Extremely high levels can result in dysfunctional perfectionism ○ Low levels are linked to criminal behaviour Heritability index = 0.28 THE BIG-5 APPLICATION CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATION ● ● PROFILING WITH NEO ● ● ● OPENNESS ● ● ● Openness (to experience) = acquisition of social or existential experiences and cognitive exploration ○ Least consensus about the domain’s meaning ○ AKA intellect Common facets: ○ Fantasy/imagination ○ Aesthetic appreciation and artistic interests ○ Appreciation of feelings ○ Unconventional ○ Ideas/curiosity ○ Creativity Observed behavioral correlates of high O: ○ Greater engagement with existential or spiritual challenges ○ Artistic or scientific expression ○ High levels associated with psychotic spectrum disorders PSYC2017 Emic approach (data-driven) ○ Developed within each culture ○ Would we still get the Big-5 this way? Etic approach (expert-driven) ○ Developed in the English language and taken to other places to see if it fits ○ The back-translation approach (English → other languages → English) ■ Does a word mean the same thing in another language as it does in English? Agreeableness and consciousness were added later The individual facets within the domains can differ greatly ○ Ie. the responses to items Results from self-report vs reported by someone else can differ greatly ○ Trigagulating data = getting data from multiple sources CLINICAL AND CRIMINAL SCREENING ● Nomothetic = the population ○ Individual’s severity against the norm ○ Screen for possible issues ■ Eg. Mental health issues 7 Normative data ● Ideographic = the individual ○ Create individual profiles ○ Crosses over with nomothetic ○ What this person will do in this situation? ■ Cattell’s Specification Equation THE BIG-1 ● Personality can be distilled into a single number (GFP) ALTERNATIVE LEXICAL MODELS ● All developed by FA THE ABRIDGED BIG-5 DIMENSIONAL CIRCUMPLEX ● ● Circular model mapped in a 2D plane forming a polygon Many facets tend to cross-load onto 2 domains ○ Factors can be oblique (related) EVALUATION OF THE BIG-5 PROS ● ● ● ● ● OTHER BIG- CONS THE BIG-6 ● ● HEXACO ○ Includes honesty/humility domain ■ = a tendency to be fair and genuine Explains unaccounted variance in the Big-5 THE BIG-2 ● ● Comprehensive coverage: identifies both personality structures and processes Testability: allows for clear testable predictions Heuristic value: stimulates and provokes research Empirical value: good cross cultural validity and temporal predictive ability Applied value: immediate applications in all sorts of domains ● ● ● Disagreement about exact number of domains ○ And about ‘openness’ domain Dimensions arent entirely orthogonal Need to be theoretically updated ○ Circulatory in logic ■ Traits cause behaviour → behaviours makeup traits Stability (alpha) = tendency to maintain stability and avoid disruption ○ Combination of N, A and C Plasticity (beta) = tendency to explore and engae flexibility ○ Combination of O and E Aspects = more specific than a domain and less specific than a facet PSYC2017 8 ○ THE DARK TRIAD ● 3 broad domains of personality ○ Antagonistic core (low agreeableness) ○ Evidence suggests these domains overlap ○ Sub-clinical levels exist in the general population ■ Trait does NOT = disorder ● MACHIAVELLIANISM ● ● NARCISSISM ● ● ● ● ● Narcissism = an egotistical preoccupation with self Two facets: ○ Grandiose narcissism (healthy?) ■ Self-centred and genuine belief that they are special and great ■ Genuinely confident ○ Vulnerable narcissism (covert narcissism) ■ Defensive to any criticism, concerned about own adequacy ■ Worried they are not good enough, concerned about hiding this ■ Contains element of anxiety ■ Contingent self esteem Common measure = Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) ○ Eg. NPI: I am an extraordinary person Common faceted measure = Personality Narcissism Inventory (PNI) ○ Distinguishes between facets ○ Eg. PNI grandiose: I can usually talk my way out of anything ○ Eg. PNI: vulnerable: I often hide my needs for fear that others will see me as needy Clinical manifestation = narcissistic personailty disorder PSYCHOPATHY ● ● ● ● Psycopathy = shallow emotional responses and uninhibited behaviour ○ Low empathy, low guilt, high stress tolerence ○ Seeking stimulation activities resulting in impulsivity Primary psychopathy (more genetic, lower anxiety) ○ Callousness, shallow affect, manipulation and superficial charm Secondary psychopathy (more environmental, higher anxiety) ○ Impulsivity and lack of long-term goals, related to hostile behaviour Common measure: Levenson’s Self-report Psychopathy Scale PSYC2017 Eg. Primary: I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings ○ Eg. Secondary: I am often bored Clinical manifestation = antisocial personality disorder ○ Formily sociopathy ● Machiavellianism = manipulation and deceit ○ Disregard for morality ○ Focus on personal gain Common measures = MACH-4: 20 item self-report measure ○ Measured as a single domain (no facets) ○ Eg. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear Machiavellianism = psychopathy??? ○ Strongly associated ○ Debated in literature SADISM ● ● Sadism as a personality trait? ○ Not in DSM-5 anymore Everyday sadism = a dispositional tendency to enjoy hurting others ○ Clinical manifestation = Sadistic Personality Disorder (removed from DSM-5) ○ Common measure = Sadistic Impulse Scale ■ Eg. Hurting people is exciting ○ Common test = Bug killing task ■ related to higher sadism DARK TRIAD EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY ● ● ● ● The dark triad are evolved traits with survival value Niche specialisation hypothesis = adaptive under certain circumstances Dark traits represent a fast ‘life history strategy’ ○ Fast strategy (R-selected) = higher no. of offspring (focus = mating) ■ Reproductive effort ■ More advantageous for males ○ Slow strategy (K-selected) = higher no. surviving offspring (focus = parenting) ■ Somatic effort ○ Challenging environments favour fast strategy ■ Done by people with these traits as they live in a challenging environment Callous exploitation of others → Reproductive success ○ Low commitment ○ FAST STRATEGY 9 ADVANTAGES OF THE DARK TRIAD ● ● ● Workplace behaviour ○ Counter-productive workplace behaviour (CWB) ■ Tactics for gaining power/reward ■ Narcissism and Machiavellianism = soft tactics ● Eg. compliments ■ Psycopathy and Machiavellianism = hard tactics ● Eg. threats Criminality (violent crime, white collar crime) ○ Linked most with psychopathy Emotional deficits ○ Greater difficulties with emotion regulation ○ Lower emotional intelligence ■ Apart from grandiose narcissism (might be higher) ● DOMAINS, ASPECTS AND FACETS ● 6-2-1 Model ○ Used for job performance predictions ■ C = higher job performance ■ N = lower job performance ■ E = high job perfomance (sometimes) ○ While domains can be good predictors, aspects are better predictors ■ Except for conscientiousness, aspects predict same as domains Different levels of personality ○ Facets ○ Aspects ■ 6 facets per domain (30 total) ○ Domains ■ 5 domains ○ Super-factors ■ 2 groups of correlated domains ○ General factor of personality (GFP) ■ Correlation between alpha and beta GENERAL FACTOR PERSONALITY THEORIES ● ● MODELS ● Big-5 circumplex model (forms 10 circles) ○ Adjectives for high and low values of the trait ○ Eg. extraversion and agreeableness PSYC2017 Evolved trait theory ○ Correlation between domains caused by evolutionary fitness of personality ○ Differences in GPF due to varying reproductive strategies ○ GPF → individual differences in reproductive strategies ■ Higher GFP = K-strategy > R-strategy ○ Evidence: positive association for ? and ? Method effect theory ○ Correlation between domains caused by people distorting their responses to sound good ■ Impression management = people lie to look better ■ Self-deceptive enhancement = people think they are beter than they are ○ Evidence: strong correlation between domains for: ■ Standard items > non-evaluative items ■ Fake good > answer honestly instructions 10 THE DARK TRIAD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ● ● ● ● TRAITS OUTSIDE COMMON MODELS ● ● ● ● ● Self-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 ● ● Jingle 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 Different personality measures 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 ● ● ● Super-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 ● Situational 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 ● 7-factor model of situations (CAPTION) = similar to 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 ● Personality related to situation selection: people 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 ● ● Situation 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 happen later for 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 ● ● ● ● Cross temporal meta-analysis studies: compares score 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 State = 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 ● Experience 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 ● ● Consistency = the rank-order of people on that trait stays 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 ● Life 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) ● ● ● Circumplex models of emotion = cross over of 2 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 More consensus and recent 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 ● Feelings, 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. Coping is a transaction of person and environment 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 ● Physiological experience and arousal → attribution of arousal to physiological state → emotion ○ Eg. I feel sad because I feel that sensation and I attribute this to the environment ○ Involves appraisal PSYC2017 16 MODAL MODEL OF EMOTION REGULATION ● ● ● ● Situation → 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 ● ● Self-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 ● ● Humanistic psychology = subjective experience and 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 ● To 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: ○ Clear 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 ● ● ● Theory 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 ● ● ● Self-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 ● ● ● ● Evolutionary 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 ● ● ● ● ● Personality = learned habit systems 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 ● ● ● ● ● Complex makeup of personal, environmental and 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 Responsive environment Successful behavioural outcomes Observing success results in more underperformance Unresponsive environment Increase efforts to improve environment or seek another environment Discouraged to the 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 Weighting is different for different people 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 ● ● ● Manage work better More persistent Less likely to reject correct solutions prematurely 19 ● ● ○ Better predictor of overall performance than cognitive ability alone Practical experiences create strong sense of academic self-efficacy ● PERFORMANCE SELF-EFFICACY ● ● ● Most correlated to WAM/GPA So is effort regulation and academic self-efficacy Hehancers: ○ Quality teachers ○ Feedback ○ Manage stress levels High prejudice: Consciously do NOT inhibit negative response ■ Beliefs and negative stereotypes are NOT in conflict Contradicting association view: 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 ● ● ● ● ● Stereotypes = 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) negative attitude towards members of a group based solely upon their membership in that group Discrimination = negative behaviour directed towards an individual based on their membership in a group The automatic-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 ● Association between stereotypes, prejudice and 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 Developmental stage 1: early learning of cultural 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 ● Tendency to report answers they believe are more socially acceptable ○ More prevalent in explicit measures ○ Less for implicit as usually reaction time bases MODE MODEL ● Motivation and opportunity as determinants (MODE) model = motivation and opportunity to control prejudice moderate the attitude-behaviour and implicit-explicit measure relationship ○ Fazio and Olson ● Dissociation between implicit and explicit measures may occur because ○ Explicit ■ Requires conscious judgement ■ Affected by motivation and opportunity to control prejudice ○ Implicit measures 21 ■ ● ■ Less affected by motivation and opportunity to control prejudice Implicit and explicit measures will correlate when individual has low motivation and opportunity to control prejudice ○ Eg. when political correctness is not important ○ Prejudice is likely to predict behaviour ○ Dependency + hatred of parents → displacement of these unacceptable impulses into hostility towards minority groups Limitation ■ Correlational data 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 ● Long-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 i