Paper 2 prep

Group dynamics ------------------- Cooperation vs Competition Conflict & Conflict Resolution Prejudice & Discrimination 2 each + 2 for each approach (bio cog soc) Abnormal psychology ------------------------

Fein and Spencer (Prej + disc. - cog ap.)

Aim: To see if stereotyping and prejudice would increase when a group of men had their self-image challenged by scores on an intelligence test.

Social identity theory

Illusory correlation: A cognitive bias which occurs when people assume that there is a relationship between two variables based on stereotypical assumptions that lack tangible evidence

Method: Experiment

Procedure: A large sample of male participants were asked to take a fake intelligence test. 1 group was told it was fake, and the other took the test and was disappointed by the low scores. They then took a “social judgment test” where they were given 2 scenarios and in both, Greg, his career struggles in the arts industry, and his desire to be part of a play and to write one were described. In text 1, he’s said to be living with his girlfriend, Anne. In the second, with his partner. The participants were then asked to fill in a questionnaire describing Greg’s personality, rating traits from 0-10. 3 traits were generic and 7 were stereotypical gay men traits. They were also asked how similar they thought they were to Greg and how likely they are to be his friend.

Results: They found that those who received negative feedback on the fake intelligence test rated the “gay implied” man more stereotypically and regardless of the “gay implied” or “straight”, they stated that they would not be friends with him, nor were they like him. However, this dislike for Greg was stronger when the participant received “negative feedback”.

Social identity theory and theory of threatened egotism (boosting self-esteem by acting out against out-group) where there was an illusory correlation based on stereotypes as to what Greg’s personality would be when he was gay-implied

Strengths:

• One strength could be that they used a lot of participants which made the results more reliable

• It has a thorough and replicable procedure, making it more reliable, especially through the possibility of redoes.

Weaknesses:

• It lacks ecological validity since questionnaires and stories aren’t real life occurrence (artificial)

• There was an assumption that the men had a strong self-image and that’s why they rated the man stereotypically

• Illusory effect (assumed pattern from coincidence) Perhaps they’ve just encountered gay men like that or have had negative experiences with them

• Are they gay?

Sheriff (Coop vs comp/ Conflict + resol/ Prej + disc. - soc ap.)

Theory: Morton Deutsch's theory and applicability

Reframing as a mutual problem and mutual (work together!) resolving

Win-win approach (1 doesn’t win and other lose like capture the flag)

Norms for cooperation (they had to be kind and work together)

Underlying values also matched up (same age, gender etc.)

Showed: Social identity theory, formation of stereotypes, effects of stereotypes

Aim: to study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of group organization, attitudes (prejudice) and group norms.

Method: Field experiment

Procedure: Camp boys were put in 2 groups randomly. The groups were kept apart and did activities together (naming team, painting shirts) to bond. After the groups bonded, conflict was introduced through a game.

Results: They called opposite team stinkers and cheaters, bad mouthing them and solidarity increasing within their own groups (in and out groups). Conflict aroase from a group identity when competing for resources (formation of stereotype). After the match they were told to characterise their own groups and then the other and tended to use negative adjectives for the other and more favorable terms for their own groups. Then to eliminate aggression, both groups had to work for the same goal (fix broken camp bus etc.) and inter-group hostility dissipated since they were no longer competing for resources (racism and resources).

Strengths: High ecological validity

Weaknesses:

Couldn’t control variables like conversations among themselves

Dependent variable recorded through self-reports from boys, reliable? Demand characteristics?

Oversimplification, not applicable to wars etc.

Sampling bias (same age, same culture)

Ethical consideration: Not protected from physical and psychological harm

Harris and Fiske (Prej + disc. - bio ap.)

Showed: Localization of function, social identity theory, formation of stereotypes

Aim: To observe the role of the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala in reacting to extreme out-groups

Method: True experiment

Procedure: Princeton undergrads divided in 2 groups - 1 saw pictures of people and other saw pictures of objects. Before starting the experiment, they were acquainted with the computer screen, being shown neutral photos and having to if they felt pride, envy, pity, or disgust while looking at it. After that they were in fMRI and were shown several photos of different groups of people ( people with disabilities, rich businessmen, older people, American Olympic athletes, and homeless people) and had to respond with an emotion to each.

Results: Brain activity in amygdala plus things showing disgust towards addicts and homeless. Insula activated (activates when looking at non-human objects like trash and shit) AND medial prefrontal cortex (when thinking of people) DIDN’T ACTIVATE. Extreme out-groups like homeless and addicts not seen as people.

Evaluation:

Strengths

fMRI sees through demand characteristics (can’t pretend to be nice)

Weaknesses

Sample size small (can’t generalize)

Sample is biased (all American rich Princeton students (intelligence or socioeconomic, cultural influence?)

Social Identity theory might be oversimplified, there’s other factors that impact reaction to out-groups than just “they’re not us”

Didn’t check homeless looking at homeless so was it rlly about out-groups?

Novotny and Polonsky (Prej + disc. - soc ap.)

Theory- Integrated threat theory: prejudice is a result of perceived threats to one's in-group (e.g threats in morals)

Aim: To see if contact with members of an out-group changes their attitude and to see if the integrated threat theory explains their attitude well

Method: Survey

Procedure: Large sample of Czechian students from different unis. Stratified sampling (set percentage of each degree at uni students randomly approached for survey). 4 sections in survey: Knowledge about islam, views of islam, geographic knowledge on islam, & personal characteristics about participant.

Results: Only 10% had a muslim friend and 23% had met a muslim. Level of islam knowledge negatively correlated with perceived threat! Less threat also if more personal contact or travel to muslim countries. Education and contact both decrease prejudice!

Evaluation:

Strengths

Large sample size

Weaknesses

Not representative of czech population (uni students travel more and are more urban cos socioeconomic class)

Forced choice (no “I don’t know” or “I have no opinion”) (e.g are muslims more, less, or equal greedy to a typical czech)

Open to demand characteristics

Self reported

Very abstract questions and results? How would they act around acc muslims lol

Sternberg & Soriano (Conflict + resol - soc ap.)

Aim: To investigate styles of conflict resolution

Method: Experimental design

Procedure: 32 tot. of male and female tests to assess vocab, styles of reasoning, personalities, and opinions. Then, presented 9 conflicts (on diff levels, some national, some interpersonal). “Evaluate solutions”

Results: Despite conflict, consistent conflict resolution style (international, or interpersonal). So, intellectual characteristics, and personality characteristics must be important in determining chosen conflict resolution style 

Evaluation:

Strengths

Real-life apps that could lead to better conflict resolution!

Weaknesses

Not generalizable: small, ethnocentric sample

Warneken and Tomasello (Coop vs comp - bio ap.)

Evolution theory: Humans worked together to forage food in the early days and this collaboration was then scaled up to group life, making cooperation a cultural norm.

Aim: To see if babies have an evolutionary instinct to help people

Method: Experiment

Procedure:

24× 18 month olds

10 situations where adult struggling to achieve goal (stacking block picking something up etc.)

• Out-of-reach objects, such as the adult dropping a marker on the floor

• Physical obstacles, like trying to put magazines into a cabinet when the doors are closed

• Wrong results, such as a book being placed on top of a stack and then falling off

• Wrong means, including dropping a spoon into a box and then trying to grab it through a small hole instead of a large flap

Control condition where no indication of problem for each scenario.

Results:

The results indicated that 22 of the 24 infants helped at least once, and that 84% of the helping responses happened within the first 10s before the adult made eye contact or asked for help.

-infants helped adults in 6 out of 10 tasks.

Kids as young as 18 months old were able to read that help was needed. Clearly there was an inherent altruistic motivation to help. evolutionary origin to altruism?

Evaluation:

Strengths

• Similar results with chimps, common evolutionary root of altruism

Weaknesses

• Demand characteristics: Baby might have just been trying to please the researcher

• Construct validity: Are we measuring altruism or did the baby see it as a game?

Unnatural “oh! oh no!” when obstacle dropped by adult (lacks ecological validity since made it easier to read signs of help)

Kerr (Coop vs comp - soc ap.)

Theories: Free riding effect, sucker effect

Aim: To investigate under which conditions people would put in the most effort, in the presence or absence of other capable/icke ppl.

Method: Lab experiment

Procedure:

In a task to pump air by pressing a rubber bulb, 4 conditions:

1. Alone

2. With capable partner working hard

3. With capable partner slacking

4. Alone but seeing someone else slacking too

Results:

Most effort in 1 and 4 (when they were judged on their own performance)

Slacking in condition 2 supports free-riding effect

Slacking in condition 3 supports sucker effect

Effect stonger in male participants.

Evaluation:

Strengths

Controlled lab experiment so clearer cause and effect relationship in diff conditions

Weaknesses

All young participants, generalizability issue

• If older people included, probably would have wprked in conditions 2 & 3 since experience in “work ethics”

The task itself was artificial, pressing air with a rubber bulb, ecological validity low.

All American, not generalizable (cultural difference: work ethic)

Weismann et al.

Biological approach

Showed: (abnormal: bio explanation for) Depression, genetics

Aim: To see how genetic depression is

Method: Longitudinal KINSHIP study, correlational

Procedure: A large sample of grandchildren, parents, and grandparents were selected (families ranging from high to low risk of depression) and watched them over 20 years. The depressed patients (now grandparents) were selected from a clinic and non-depressed from local community. The original parents and kids were interviwed 4 times before a 3rd generation was introduced. Data was collected from clinicians and researcher triangulation to ensure credibility. Results: High rates of psychiatric disorders (most commonly anxiety) in the grandchildren with two generations of major depression. Lower depression chance if grandparent is depressed but parent isn’t and severities impacted child’s. Depressed parent but fine grandparent didn’t impact grandchild much.

Strengths: Longitudinal (more reliability)

Research triangulation (taking data in different ways: surveys PLUS asking local clinicians for expert opinions)

Large sample

Weaknesses: Indicates potential genetic link to behaviour but no actual genotype studied.

Large sample but more research needed for reliability

Becker et al.

Sociocultural approach

Showed: HL Globalisation eating disorders (abnormal: prevelance rates of disorders)

Aim: To observe if television access to content of the world would impact eating disorders

Method: Natural experiment (they didn’t introduce tvs, it was happening anyway)

Procedure: the behaviours of the participants were measured prior to the introduction of television into their culture. 2 samples of fijian teenage girls were studied. The first group was tested again weeks after and the other 3 years later. A survey deteming eating habits (EAT-26) was given to both of them. Weight and height were measured and semi-structured interviews to check if any symptoms of eating disorders were coming thorugh. Group 2 was also asked additional questions about body image and dieting. Results: For group 1 (weeks after) dieting was rare and they had an average EAT-26 score but group 2 had 79% dieting, high reports of self-induced vomiting and overall higher numbers of EDs, reporting they felt “too fat”, mostly becuase of the television they stated and that they thought they could get more jobs if they were skinny which was hard when their parents expected them to eat so much.

Strengths: Naturalistic so high ecological validity

Weaknesses: Cannot be replicated so low reliability

Self reported surveys and not diagnoses for anorexia

Not same participants in group 1 and 2 so maybe group 2’s participants had EDs to begin with

Can’t isolate television as fault, what about peer pressure?

Brown & Harris (1978)

Etiology- Abnormal: Sociocultural explanation for depression. Prevalence rates of depression

Aim: To see how depression could be linked to social factors and stress (sample: London women)

Method: Survey

Procedure: A large sample of women were surveyed on their lives and depressive episodes. They then conducted interviews to ask about specific life events and how they coped.

Results: In previous year, 8% of them had been depressed. 90% of them had experienced a difficult life event. Working-class women with children were 4 times more likely to become depressed than middle-class with children. Lack of social support, more than 3 children (under 14), unemployment, at the same time as acute (short-term) or ongoing serious social stressors, were likely to provoke depressive episodes.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

Semi-structured interview was great for more in-depth info

Large sample!

Weaknesses: Gender biased

Chiao & Blizinsky (2009)

Abnormal: Biological and sociocultural explanation for depression, + prevalence of depression

Aim: Investigate rates of depression with both individualism-collectivism and genetic variations of the 5HTT gene

Method: Correlational study

5HTT is the transporter gene for Serotonin reuptake in the brain. Serotonin is a hormone that makes you happy (among other things, a deficiency often causing depression). Mutations can make either one or both alleles of 5HTT gene short and both affect the efficiency of serotonin transportation

Procedure: HUGE sample from MANY countries (data from existing research). Indices of scale of each country’s individualism vs collectivism + collected medical records for frequency of allele variation of serotonin transporter gene 5 HTT

Results: Cultural dimension was a buffer for depression! Collectivist countries like East Asia where most population has short allele and is susceptible to MDD are BUFFERED by culture, affecting prevelance of disorder. Prevalence rate lower than US and Western Europe.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

Application-Evidence that culture and surroundings are equally, if note more important in preventing depression (not just biological factors)

LARGE sample

Cross-cultural

Weaknesses:

Could be stigmatised - Prevalence rates not accurate

• Response bias - Cultural pressures NOT to seek help

• People can’t all afford treatment (not in database)

Alloy et al. (2009)

Abnormal: Cognitive explanation for depression.

Aim: To see if one’s thinking patterns could be used to predict the onset of depression

Method: Longitudinal study

Procedure: Students were given a test to measure their cognitive style (high risk or low risk for depression based on thinking patterns). Carried out follow-up assignments regularly for another 6 years. Both questionnaires and structured interviews to identify stressful life events, cognitive style, and depressive symptoms.

Results: The cognitively high-risk ppl had a 17% prevalence rate of depression whereas the low-risk had 1%. HR higher chance of showing actual depressive symptoms (not just cognitively).

Evaluation:

Strengths:

Shows strong trend in thinking styles and development of depression

Weaknesses:

No clear cause and effect

Doesn’t take genetics into consideration

No control over other influences during study

Nolen Hoeksema (2000)

Abnormal: Cognitive explanation for depression.

Aim: To study the role of rumination on depressive symptoms

*Rumination - the focused attention on the symptoms of one’s distress

Method:

Procedure: Large sample (randomly selected), clinical interviewed 2 times over a year in their homes. Interview incl- Beck Depression Inventory test, Beck anxiety inventory, and 2 other tests. Then, “rumination and coping” questionnaire. They were asked to rate how often they think, "Why do I react this way", "I think about how sad I am", or "I think that I will lose my job if I don't get better."

Results: Ppl with MDD symptoms during first interview also had higher ruminative reponses in next (compared to ppl with no MDD signs). Ppl who’d NEVER been depressed showed much lower scores than ALL. Those who had been depressed but improved ruminated less than chronically depressed (obviously. who needs a test for this).

Evaluation:

Strengths: Large sample

Research triangulation (various tests (official and own rumination) and interview discussion.

Super random sample

Weaknesses: Self-report questionnaires