Unit 2: Case Study I&S Flashcards - Psychology of Marginalization

Luby (2013) - Brown+ Harris (1978) - Garrison (1995) - Bourgeois + Bowen (2001) or Jetten (2001) - Park and Rothbart (1982) - Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) OR Phelps (2000)

What was the aim of the Luby (2013) study?

The study aimed to investigate whether poverty and stress influence brain development in children, focusing on how socioeconomic status (SES), parental stress, and parent-child interactions affect the structure of key brain regions like the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex.

What methods did the Luby (2013) study use to collect data?

The study used MRI scans to assess brain structures (focusing on the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex). SES was measured using the income-to-needs ratio and occupation. Parental stress was evaluated through life events (e.g., financial difficulties, exposure to violence), and parent-child interactions were observed during the "Gift Task Procedure," where parents managed their child's behavior while waiting to open a wrapped gift.

What were the key findings of the Luby (2013) study?

The study found that lower SES was associated with smaller hippocampal and amygdala volumes in children. Positive parent-child interactions during the "Gift Task Procedure" correlated with higher hippocampal volume, while more parental stress was linked to more negative interactions with children. These results highlight how poverty and stress shape brain development through their impact on parenting and environmental support.

What was the aim of Brown and Harris's Vulnerability Model of Depression (1978)?

To explain how the interaction between risk factors (vulnerability) and protective factors influences susceptibility to depression, particularly in response to significant life stressors.

How did Brown and Harris develop the Vulnerability Model of Depression?

Based on extensive research conducted in South London, the study examined women’s experiences with major life stressors, personal vulnerabilities (e.g., lack of social support, socioeconomic disadvantage), and protective factors (e.g., strong relationships) to determine how these factors interacted to trigger depressive episodes.

What were the key findings of Brown and Harris's Vulnerability Model of Depression?

The study found that:

• Major stressors (e.g., death of a loved one, job loss) increased depression risk, especially for those with vulnerabilities like lack of social support, multiple young children, low self-esteem, or socioeconomic hardship.

• Protective factors, such as strong social support and effective coping strategies, reduced depression risk even in the presence of stressors.
  This model highlights how vulnerabilities predispose individuals to depression, while stressors act as triggers.

What was the aim of Garrison et al.’s (1995) study on PTSD?

To investigate cross-cultural differences in the prevalence of PTSD among Black, Hispanic, and White teenagers in the US, six months after Hurricane Andrew in Florida.

How was data collected in the Garrison et al. (1995) study?

Structured interviews were conducted with 350 teenage participants to assess PTSD symptoms, focusing on their experiences during and after Hurricane Andrew.

What were the key findings of Garrison et al.’s (1995) study on PTSD?

• Young women were more than three times as likely to develop PTSD as young men (9% vs. 3%).

• Black (8.3%) and Hispanic (6.1%) participants had higher PTSD rates compared to White participants.

• PTSD was more strongly correlated with post-hurricane stressors than events during the hurricane, highlighting the role of appraisals and economic disparities in explaining PTSD.

What was the aim of Bourgeois & Bowen’s (2001) study on poverty and social identity?

To investigate how individuals’ social identities, particularly those from different socioeconomic backgrounds, influence perceptions of poverty, focusing on whether poverty is attributed to personal failings (e.g., laziness) or systemic factors (e.g., economic inequality).

How did Bourgeois & Bowen (2001) investigate the role of social identity in perceptions of poverty?

They used surveys to gather data from participants of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. Participants rated their agreement with statements about poverty causes, including individualistic explanations (e.g., lack of effort) and structural explanations (e.g., systemic inequality).

What were the key findings of Bourgeois & Bowen’s (2001) study?

• Participants identifying with higher-status groups (e.g., higher income or education) were more likely to attribute poverty to personal failings.

• Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or egalitarian social groups were more likely to recognize systemic causes of poverty, such as discrimination or structural inequality.
  The results highlighted how social identity influences attitudes toward poverty.

What was the aim of Jetten, Branscombe, and Spears’ (2001) study on social identity and intergroup relations?

To investigate how social identity influences group-based emotions (e.g., pride, guilt, resentment) and behaviors toward out-groups, focusing on how high- and low-status group members perceive and respond to social hierarchies.

How did Jetten, Branscombe, and Spears (2001) study the role of social identity in intergroup relations?

Participants were randomly assigned to high- or low-status groups, reflecting privileged or disadvantaged positions. They reflected on their group membership and rated their emotional responses (e.g., pride, guilt, resentment) and attitudes toward out-groups. The researchers also manipulated whether the group’s status was perceived as legitimate or illegitimate, observing how these perceptions shaped participants' responses.

What were the key findings of Jetten, Branscombe, and Spears’ (2001) study on social identity?

• High-status group members felt pride and justified inequality to maintain dominance.

• Low-status group members felt resentment if their position was seen as unfair but were less likely to challenge inequality if they accepted the hierarchy as legitimate.

• Strong identification with low-status groups motivated collective action to challenge inequality, but only when their status was perceived as unjust.

What was the aim of Park & Rothbart's (1982) study on out-group homogeneity?

To investigate whether members of sororities perceive their own group as more diverse (in-group heterogeneity) and out-group members as more similar to each other (out-group homogeneity) on personality traits and characteristics.

How did Park & Rothbart (1982) study out-group homogeneity in sororities?

• Participants: 90 women from three similar sororities at the University of Oregon.

• Method: Participants completed a questionnaire, ranking their own sorority and two out-group sororities on ten dimensions (e.g., attractiveness, studiousness, economic status) using a 7-point scale.

• Dimensions included traits like group cohesiveness, house rule strictness, and philanthropic activity.

What were the key findings of Park & Rothbart’s (1982) study on out-group homogeneity?

• Participants perceived their own sorority as more diverse than out-group sororities, confirming out-group homogeneity bias.

• They rated their in-group more favorably on traits (e.g., better-dressed, more studious) while rating out-groups less favorably, reflecting in-group favoritism and stereotyping.

What was the aim of Bertrand and Mullainathan's (2004) Resume Study?

To investigate whether employers discriminate based on perceived race, as inferred from job applicants' names, and to examine the role of implicit bias in hiring decisions.

What was the procedure of Bertrand and Mullainathan's (2004) Study?

• Fictitious resumes were created with identical qualifications but with names associated with either white (e.g., Emily, Greg) or Black (e.g., Lakisha, Jamal) individuals.

• These resumes were submitted to over 1,300 job listings in Chicago and Boston across various industries.

• Callback rates for interviews were measured as an indicator of employer interest.

What were the key findings of Bertrand and Mullainathan's (2004) Resume Study?

• Resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than those with Black-sounding names.

• Higher-quality resumes improved callback rates, but the increase was more significant for white-sounding names, revealing racial discrimination in hiring practices.

What was the aim of Phelps et al. (2000) study on the Implicit Association Task (IAT) and amygdala activation?

To investigate the neural basis of implicit racial bias by examining the relationship between amygdala activity and performance on the Implicit Association Task (IAT).

What methods were used in Phelps et al. (2000) to examine implicit racial bias?

• White participants completed an IAT measuring bias toward Black and White faces, requiring quick categorization of faces paired with positive or negative words.

• Brain activity was measured using fMRI while participants viewed Black and White faces, focusing on the amygdala.

• The study analyzed the correlation between IAT scores (reaction times) and amygdala activation.

What were the key findings of Phelps et al. (2000) regarding implicit bias and brain activity?

• Participants with higher implicit racial bias (faster IAT reaction times for White + Good and Black + Bad pairings) showed greater amygdala activation when viewing Black faces.

• Greater amygdala activation was linked to viewing Black faces compared to White faces.