General Psychology Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

General Psychology NotesWeek 1: Critical Thinking Tool KitType of Evidence Researcher bias  Representativeness  Response bias  Generalisability  Reverse causality  3rd factor problem  Ecological validity  Poor Conceptualisation  Poor Operationalisation  Responder bias  Contamination by me...

Description

General Psychology Notes Week 1: Critical Thinking Tool Kit Type of Evidence              

Researcher bias Representativeness Response bias Generalisability Reverse causality 3rd factor problem Ecological validity Poor Conceptualisation Poor Operationalisation Responder bias Contamination by measurement Reification Coherence Refutation Presentation of Evidence

          

Being technical Using the social Language Rhetorical questions Rule of three Opinion as fact Superlatives Evidentialities Emotional language Pronouns Flattery

Evidence      

Methods: sample, design Measurement: ways of measure Coherence: how things put together Refutation: conflicting evidence Theory / Discipline / Truth Data analysis Method



Causality (can we know it?)  Reverse causality (can it go either way?)  3rd third factor problem / confounding factor (what else could have caused it?) Example:  Stereotypes come from presumed causal link  Qualitative / Cross-sectional study, always problem with reverse causality  Experimental / Longitudinal (due to time variable), unlikely have reverse causality  Researcher bias (researcher’s subjectivity)  Response bias (drop outs)  Responder bias (social desirability bias)  Ecological validity (valid in the real world?)  Generalisability / Representativeness (To others?)

   

Measurement Conceptualization: the definition of key concepts Construct: what we measure Operationalization: how to measure Measurement tool: measure reflects the concepts  Contamination by measurement  Reification: the ways in language and measurement process can take a very vague and strange notion, and make it feel like a concrete thing

Coherence • Aims match methods, results match the aims, conclusion match results • Exploratory question = qualitative study; • Refutation: understand one piece of evidence in the context of all other evidence ○ Systematic reviews + Meta-analysis

• Conflicting Evidence • Falsified

Social Studies of Science • Study of how science create knowledge, use science as the laboratory and find scientific facts • Key: how do things become truth ○ Being technical § Equipment § MRI scans § Blood testing § Microscopes § Biology ○ Using social § Recruiting colleagues § Citing others § Using experts § Peer review ○ Language § Objective / Technical § Tables, figures, numbers § Using references § Arguments from authority § Arguments from past Discourse Analysis • The function of text • Rhetorical questions – ‘Do you want to live in a world where our children die young? • Rule of three – Personality is core to psychology, central to who we are and a useful construct • Opinion as fact – Men are more aggressive than women • Superlatives – Autism is the most common problem in this school • Evidentialities – Obviously we all know • Emotional language – Jealously is a dreadful feeling to have • Pronouns – We all know someone who has made us jealous • Flattery – Psychologists are keen to understand the world. Note: Biological points sound more science and gives credibility; Status of the person enhance credibility

Week 2: Is Gaydar a Myth  

The term gaydar was introduced in the 90s The term being popularized in Futurama (a cartoon)



In popular culture, phenomenon often is considered an inexplicable intuition seemingly innately bestowed upon members of the gay community. Gaydar can have an adaptive function. It helps them to get together and forms a community (build connections) In 19th-20th century: special language between homosexual (Polari special way to communicate in English) o Used by gay men to communicate with each other: allowed for communication & recognition o Give out signals in US by: wearing a red tie / are you 'Dorathy friend'? Gay has been involved in the past by straight people to detect gay o Canada: fruit machine o Army: homosexuality identified as mental illness Research has investigated gaydar as sexual orientation categorization process (for both LGBT / sexual minorities) Gaydar as the ability to categories or identify sexual orientation of other individuals on the basis of minimal cues o Visual cues: face o Clothing o Body shape / movements o Explicit symbols: rainbow o Voice

 



 

*Gaydar literature provided mixed results* Main study types:  Dichotomous choice: participants exposed to different targets, and forced to choose a 'gay'  Likert scale / Kinsey-like scale: could rate the target on a scale from exclusively hetereosexual / exclusively homosexual or gay Visual Gaydar Rule & Ambady (2008) Participants are exposed to pictures --> dichotomous choice --> gay or not (male targets only) Manipulated time: participants exposed to picture (33ms to 10,000ms)

Only showed the specific parts of face (eyes, nose mouth) Short time --> only 50% were accurate From 50ms on --> the accuracy become higher than chance level (indicate certain accuracy) Brewer & Lyons (2016) Both male and female targets Dichotomous choice for judgement, added the confidence Higher accuracy for women than men More confidence when rating someone is gay Lick & Johnson (2016) Understand the mechanism behind gaydar Straight categorisation bias: when people force to make good judge from facial cues, they assume everyone is straight and the minority as gay, so having a tendency in accurately judging straight but less accurate in judging gay Study design: Categorisation is not affected by the type of information or stimuli distribution  Telling the participant 50% is gay, 50% is not gay  Did not improve the judgement Gender Heuristic: Those who identified as gay are those perceived as more gender atypical

Rieger et al. (2010) Participants were exposed to mixed cues: voice, gestures, clothing, full appearance Likert scale method used: overall quite accurate, but the means are not very high Accuracy depends on the cues Auditory Gaydar Sulpizio & Fabio (2010)  Record German & Italian voice --> dichotomous method  Found overall accuracy in straight speakers for both languages  Not in homosexual in terms of accuracy  Half and half methods did not make a difference Sulpizio & Fabio et al (2015) Dichotomous Choice  Computer with two category: heterosexual / homosexual  Participant listen to audio, and move asap to their answer (able to test confidence)  If participant confidence: move faster



Graph shows hesitation when identify / indicate homosexual o Meaning even if they got correct answer, they were not confident

Likert scale  Means for homosexual is higher than the heterosexual  Categorize people as more heterosexual Straight categorization bias Recent Debates Arguments underlie in:  Definition of accuracy and operationalization  Binary concept of sexuality  Biological or socially contextualized measure Accuracy:  Depends on the type of research method used, cues  Confidence is not related to accuracy, so difficult for someone to label other's sexuality  Gender inversion stereotypes, stereotyping often guiding categorization Type of stimuli  Stimuli selection: Consider the recruitment issue, participants' awareness of the aim  Quality: quality of pictures and etc. , control of speaking / reading  Presentation of strategies behind the stimuli: ie dating website --> have self presentation Conceptual  Binary concept vs Fluidity concept  Operationalization of sexual orientation  Study showed that sexual minorities difficult to categorize themselves in a binary concept  Gaydar judgement may affected by context  Intentionality and desires of the individual: asked homosexual people if they would like to disclose their sexual orientation through voice o Women did not care about voice o Heterosexual men would want to sound masculine --> for others to identify their identity

Week 3: Is Money the Answer

Sources of Evidence What is the evidence Where does it comes from How is it demonstrated Who? Credibility? Objective? What agenda? Vulnerable to research bias? Depending on the Journal Some journal are more difficult to get published IE: open access journal are linked to university, give money and publish Looking in to impact factor of the paper: typically higher the better (Psychological Bulletin web) 1. Psychology is not important  About mind-control  Not a real science  The art of manipulation Marine Litter: How do we change the behaviours (solutions) Solution: stop raw materials, production, use and disposal Related players: producer, marketing, consumer 2. People simply don't know, so all you need to do is inform them  Evidence show that people do know, but doesn't mean they will engage in pro-environmental behaviour  What do people know?  How many times behaviour had been measured? Risk Perception  If people perceived the risk, more likely to adjust the behaviour  How science is presented in the media can result in discrepancy between public and experts' perception of risk Risk Amplification: the public think risks are higher than experts do (likely to over-react) Risk Attenuation: the public think risks are smaller than experts do (likely to under-react) 3. Scaring people will get them to change their behaviour

The role of emotion (fear appeals)  Emotion can drive behaviour and can be hideous  Not always work: ie - denial / ignorance of unpleasant images / messages (smoking)  Cognitive Dissonance Theory: rather than changing behaviour, we find reasons / excuses



Can act as defence mechanism

Psychological Distance  Temporal aspect: not going to affect me now o Ie: starting to show impact on us, but the severity are in future (ten, hundreds of years)  Spatial aspect: behaviours are not always directly linked to the actual issue and the cause (ie: not my island)  Social aspect: campaigns trying to link to population / social network / interaction around you o Hence making it difficult to environmental campagins  Uncertainty / Experiential: there's cause and effect relationship on some issues, but in environmental psychology, can be difficult 4. People just don’t care On average, people are very concerned about the impacts of marine litter  Social desirability: others care so I care  Increased salience  Framing of the survey & questions: designing the questionnaire and distribute it can prime people it is somehow important  Absolute vs relative: care about many different things, but not capable or have the ability to care about everything  People care about it, but doesn't mean they will engage in proenvironmental behaviour o Depends on: childhood experiences etc. 5. Money is the only way to change behaviour  Successful campaigns with money: plastic bag (improved the environment), work (salary)  Money is not a key motive (study showed financial gain is not a stated reason) o Other stronger predictors: improve environment, civic duty, information, convenience o Causation: Money might not be related to motivation, but other factors o Biased sample?  Study in 2013: o Environmental coupon / Financial coupon / control o Result show environmental coupon are most taken  Meta-analysis o Incentives can promote recycling behaviour  The use of money can actually be detrimental to behaviour change o Intrinsic motivation (driven by personal goals):

o Extrinsic motivation (driven by external rewards): financial incentives successful for short term effect; can promote unintended behaviours (ie: greater consumption / littering in future context); discourage spillover behaviour  Positive spillover: pro-environmental behavoiur increases the likelihood of performing additional pro environmental behaviours  Ie: changed target behaviour less single use carrier bags found  Negative spillover: decreases 6. People only behave rationally Theory of Planned Behaviour Reasoned behaviour: Automatic behaviour: *people do not always act rationally* People are not always aware of why they act in certain ways (related to motivation) Motivating factors:  Environmental protection  Social responsibility:  Information  Self-interest  Social-norm

Week 4: Research Design Qualitative Study  Focus groups   

Links between the variables made by the participants It is exploratory / novel / rich / detailed Limited to sample / just a story

Quantitative Study Inductive: Having a theory and test the design  Cross-sectional survey o Links between variables made by participants o Large scale / exploratory o Limited to sample / just a story  Cross-sectional study







o Links between variables made by researcher o Large sample / associations between variables o No causal data Case control o Find causes --> control group --> match & difference o Links between variables made by researcher o Larger sample / associations between variables o Not causal Cohort (longitudinal / repeated measure) o Can look at change o Not causal Randomised controlled trial (RCT) o Control vs intervention o Can look at change o Causal

Week 5: Personality is fixed Personality Models Contemporary Model  Traits (actor): how we tend to act most of the time  Characteristics adaptations (agent): social ecology of everyday life, are activated in response to and ultimately shaped by everyday demands of social life  Life narratives (author): life stories we tell about ourselves and make sense of who we are Big Five     

Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

Personality trait vs state  Personality trait is the average of a person's state  State: how we are acting / behaving at the moment Do personality traits change? Harris, Brett, Johnson, Deary (2016)  Assessed personality stability from age 14-77 years old  Much lower stability on personality o Self-confidence o Perseverance

o o o o

Stability of moods Conscientiousness Originality Desire to excel

Jackson et al  Sample of German males experienced military services  Lower levels of agreeableness in military group o Deprivation of other experiences? o Opportunity to work with more heterogenous / agreeable colleagues? Bernt Roberts  Meta-analysis on patterns of change  Most of the changes in young adulthood period  Neuroticism: getting stable over lifespan  Social dominance: increase until 40, then stabilized  Social vitality: fairly stable  Agreeableness: increases throughout lifespan  Conscientiousness : increases throughout lifespan starting at 20  Openness: increases until 20, then fairly stable until 55, then drop Causes of change Five-Factor Theory:  Personality is determined by biological maturation, not by life experiences  Originally claimed that intrinsic developmental processes of Big Five are largely completed around age of 30 years Theory of Genotype-Environment Effects  Personality development is driven by genotype that affects personality via effects on life experiences  Life experiences act as mediators between genetic factors and personality, because ‘environments provide a range of opportunities for development’  Life events do not cause change unless they are very extreme. Dynamic Equilibrium Model  Traits have genetic set point  Major life experiences change traits temporarily but in the long-run they return to their set points  Only far-reaching experiences might permanently change the set point  Acknowledges changes can be caused by life events (unlike five factor theory)  Does not specify that life events have genetic roots (unlike g->e)

Paradoxical Theory of Personality Coherence  The effects of genetic predispositions depend on the environmental circumstances  Change happens when you enter a new environment where: o Existing behaviour is not adaptive in the new environment o There is clear information on how to behave adaptively in the new environment  Social role expectations and social pressure drive personality change Neo-Socioanalytic Theory  Plasticity principle: personality may change in reaction to the environment throughout the lifespan  Social investment principle: investment in age-graded social roles is a driving factor for personality development/change  Stability in personality is considered to be a result of: o a commitment to an increasingly developed identity, o consistent social roles, o experiences that deepen the personality traits that led to those experiences in the first place. Theory of Self-Regulated Personality Change  People have social norms or personal goals, or even hedonic preferences (they call these reference values)  As people strive (using self-regulation) towards these values over time, their traits can change  Personality change can therefore come about when: o (reference) values change – e.g. high motivation towards a new goal. o When self-regulation capacities change – e.g. learn a new skill? Concluding  Personality traits are complex phenomena  Traits are not fully consistent across time – people differ in their interpretation of this  Inconsistencies were previously considered to be measurement error  More recently age related trends in mean levels of traits have been found suggested change is more widespread than previously thought  There is now evidence of very low consistency (i.e. high change) over long periods and also changes linked to interventions over very short

periods  Multiple explanations for change have been offered, from biological determinism through to social investment theories

Week 6: Autism Myth 1: Prevalence of Autism is increasing In early studies, autism has been considered as rare (.04%)  Important to note the methodological differences across the studies and conceptual differences across the studies  Not a clear comparison between studies to consider whether it's increased  Prevalence depend on the context o Ie: significant difference between reported prevalence in UK vs US o Reflected the views of the countries, perception, terminology, diagnosis Difficult to tell in the given contexts and methodologies  Prevalence is not incidence o Prevalence: tells the number of reported cases o Incidence: tells us the actual number of cases that exist Factors explain the increase  Changes in behavioural diagnosis: definition, conceptualisation, widen diagnostic criteria / heterogeneity o Ie: 1% ASD vs .25% autism  Better and wider identification / assessments  Increase of awareness o Ie: gender differences Myth 2: Autism can be cured Media contents: misleading titles Therapies with little or no evidence listed on NHS site:  Dolphin assisted therapy  Neurofeedback therapy  Special diet  Hyperbaric oxygen therapy  Bleaching / cholorine dioxide  Vitamins & minerals

Most positive impact of intervention: Lovaas Home Based Early Behavior Intervention  Applied Behaviour Analysis  Positive and negative reinforcement to shape behaviour and learning. Intensive early intervention  90% of children substantially improved, closed to half attained a normal IQ and tested with normal range on adaptive and social skills Criticism:  Biased assignment between groups  No consistency in outcome measurement  Not all children received the same number of treatment hours or for same period of time  Primarily language focused  Definition of 'best outcome' is unclear  Intensity of the programme Recent evidence for behavioural intervention  Interpersonal Synchrony (joint attention, imitation, affect sharing, turn taking)  Joint attention & interactive play Inconsistent evidence of behavioural interventions Specific aspects of social-communication that show improvements Autism is a life-long condition Ethics: does it need to be cure? Does MMR vaccine cause autism? MMR vaccine: for measles mumps and rubella introduced in 1988, highly infectious disease that can cause meningitis, swelling the brain and deafness Injection for 2 doses Paper published in 1998 (Wakefield, 1998) Illeal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmenta...