Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
153 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Emotional Development
|
Acquiring the skill to "read" others' emotions
|
|
|
Signs of emotional development in kids
|
- Infants: express some emotional reading ex: preferring congruent faces, imitation, Social referencing
- as children grow they are better able to imagine others' emotional state - language and communication play a role when able to tell others how the feel |
|
|
Emotion Regulation
|
-The ability to control, diminish or change one's feelings
- the ability to think and converse about emotion also grows with age |
|
|
Emotional skills by age 5
|
Distraction - "think of something happy"
Compensation - "We'll get ice cream if..." Reinterpretation - "Dumbledore didn't doe, he just..." |
|
|
Gender difference between emotions?
|
GIrls tend to be more positive than boys
|
|
|
Culture's role in emotion
|
emotional life is shaped by the cultural context
- different across the globe |
|
|
Moral Development and Judgment
|
the ability to tell what's right and wrong
- this develops in stages, partly dependent on age |
|
|
Kohlberg’s stages of morality
|
Preconventional
Conventional Postconventional 6 sub levels within each stage |
|
|
Preconventional Morality
|
Level 1: Avoids punishment out of fear
Level 2: does things that earn them rewards |
|
|
Conventional Morality
|
centered around social relationships, conventions and duties
-this stage ends in adolescence Level 3: gains approval and avoids disapproval of others Level 4: defined by rigid codes of "Law and Order" |
|
|
Postconventional Morality
|
Internalization of ideals and broad moral principles
-most adults are in this stage (the west) Level 5: "social contract" generally agreed upon for public good Level 6: Abstract ethical principles that determines one's own moral code |
|
|
Cheating in School
|
common moral decision
- the higher moral development, the less it happened |
|
|
Gilligan's Challenge
|
Male and female moral reasoning may differ systematically
CAUTION: one gender is not more moral than the other but they may use different principles to guide choices |
|
|
Gilligan's theory of male moral reasoning
|
men may use more abstract, rational principles like justice
"a math problem with humans" |
|
|
Gilligan's theory of female moral reasoning
|
women may see morality more in terms of what human relationships/ responsibility to others is being impacted by her decisions
-preservation of all human relationships may be highest standard |
|
|
How do we learn to be moral?
|
Reward and punishment
- increased levels of punishment reliably prohibits development of sense of conscience Strong relationship and identification with caregivers = stronger, faster development of moral behavior |
|
|
Early learning vs later learning of morality
|
early learning lacks flexibility
later, with age and experience, it's less rigid |
|
|
Emotions and Morality
Prosocial behaviors? |
empathy
-early evidence for empathy in infants, cry when others cry understanding of feelings -what is the cause of the feeling? understanding others point of view -grows with age knowing what to do and how to help |
|
|
Genetic differences that affect emotions
|
temperament and emotional responsivity differ due to genes
- the affect intensity measure (AIM) -Larsen and Diener |
|
|
Environmental Differences that affect emotions
|
imitation of adults
supportive vs. unsympathetic parenting -more likely to do what parents do people who experience happy emotions strongly, also experience sad ones strongly |
|
|
Sexual Development
|
three different ways to look at someone's "sex"
|
|
|
Genetic sex
|
does one have an "XX" or and "XY" pattern in the 23rd chromosome?
|
|
|
Morphological sex
|
What shape/form/structure does one have - vagina and ovaries, or penis and testes?
|
|
|
Gender role
|
determined by the behavioral patterns that one displays, which presents the person either as male or female
|
|
|
when and how are gender roles formed and lived up to?
|
- Enforced usually by genetics (hormones)
- modeled and taught by parents, peers, and society - Children conform to gender roles from about age 2 |
|
|
Gender Differences in Ability
|
- small differences in magnitude
- considerable overlap between ability/behavior |
|
|
Why are there gender differences?
|
- may be rooted in cultural and social expectations
|
|
|
what is an example of a "stereotype threat"?
|
For girls, noting gender at top of a test on math led to consistently lower math scores
- they became aware of their femaleness and the stereotype which is that females don't do well in math |
|
|
Gender Identity
|
the sense of either being male or female, regardless of genes/body structures etc.
|
|
|
what affects gender identity?
|
- Social/education cues which begin immediately after birth
- Biological differences in hormonal profiles also affect gender identify - Gender is NOT the result of just nature or just nurture, it results from complex interactions of both |
|
|
what is going on when a person decided to go through gender reassignment?
|
this is usually done when a gender identity is at odds with genetics
|
|
|
Sexual Orientation
|
Who is one romantically/erotically oriented towards – one’s own gender or the opposite gender?
Same gender: homosexual Opposite gender: heterosexual |
|
|
statistics?
|
~ 4 – 13 % of men: “exclusively” or “predominantly” homosexual
~ 2 – 7 % of women: “exclusively” or “predominantly homosexual” |
|
|
Origins of homosexuality
|
Genetic/biological link: rates for same-sex preference in twins:
- For identical twins: 52%; - For fraternal twins, figure drops to 22% Prenatal hormonal environment may change certain aspects of sexuality Feelings of same-sex attraction: emerge well before puberty |
|
|
what is aggression?
|
our different manifestations of anger
our coping mechanisms could differ by gender |
|
|
Erik Erikson
|
he was the first to focus on adult/aged development
-development after childhood |
|
|
Erikson's stages
|
Early Adulthood: intimate bonds of love, marriage
Middle Age: Life goals of family, career, society; generativity to next generation Later years: Meaning making, meaning accepting, integrity of one’s life as it was lived |
|
|
development tasks which differ greatly by age
|
1 – 18 month old: attachment, trust in others
18 – 36 months: self control, autonomy 3-6 years: purpose, direction, initiative 6 yrs – puberty: Social, physical, school skills Adolescence: Identity |
|
|
Adult development
|
have you reached adulthood?
-majority of 18-25 year old Americans say neither "yes" or "no" |
|
|
"adulthood"
|
demographics?
qualities of character? parenthood? |
|
|
Social Psychology
|
the scientific study of how:
1. we think about, 2. influence, and 3. relate to one another |
|
|
Social Influence
Three types of influence? |
Conformity
Obedience Compliance |
|
|
Conformity
|
adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard
|
|
|
M. Sherif's (1937) classic conformity experiment
|
Individuals asked to view a stationary light
- Task: estimate how far the light had moved when viewed in a darkened room (The light had not moved at all) - Sometimes performed the task alone, sometimes with others in the room - Estimates varied according to # of people in the room, and whether confederates gave high/low estimates |
|
|
Line experiment of conformity (peer pressure)
|
Researcher Solomon Asch (1951)
-Individuals given a card with a vertical line printed on it -Participants asked to then look at another card with three lines on it: two did not match, one did -Task: select line that matched the length of the line on the original card; correct answer was clear |
|
|
Asch's findings
|
-under certain conditions, people will conform to a group’s judgment, even when it is clearly incorrect. -Experiments indicate that conformity increases when we feel incompetent or insecure, admire the group’s status and attractiveness, have made no prior commitment to a
response, are being observed by other group members, come from a culture than encourages respect for social standards, and are in a group with at least three people who are unanimous in their judgment. |
|
|
normative social influence
|
We are sensitive to social norms and so we sometimes conform to gain social approval
-we want to fit in, be liked and avoid looking foolish |
|
|
informational social influence
|
we accept information about reality provided by the group
-we seek others' opinion on what is correct if we suspect they might know better than we do |
|
|
Social Norms
|
very powerful, imagine violating one
-standing in the middle of class, wearing shorts to church etc. |
|
|
Stanley Milgram and social norms
|
experimented with social constraint in public transportation
-asked person on a train for their seat -he couldn't do it - it was the hardest thing he has ever had to do -when he finally did, the person gave him his seat, but he had to explain why the social norm was violated (pretended to be sick) |
|
|
Milgram's conclusions on social principles
|
-enormous inhibitory anxiety ordinarily prevents us from breaking
social norms -we have a powerful need to justify our actions after violating a norm -the power of immediate circumstances on our feelings and behavior is immense |
|
|
Majority Influence
|
when it is unanimous, it is very powerful and urges someone to conform to them
|
|
|
Minority Influence
|
One person's dissent from the group can break the hold of the majority
-does not stem from the creation of an "alliance" -occurs even when the dissenter chose and incorrect response, as long as it differed from the majority's response |
|
|
Obedience
|
A response to a direct behavior request by an authority figure
|
|
|
Pros and cons of obedience
|
Some obedience is necessary for life in a complex society - laws
But: Why do we obey commands that result in atrocities – Nazi death camps, Khmer Rouge massacres etc |
|
|
Two sources of obedience
|
dispositional trait of obedience
situational aspects |
|
|
Personality and obedience
Authoritarian Personality? |
beliefs about power, obedience, and the importance of strong leadership
-need for order/structure -intolerance of ambiguity -concern with death and societal instability |
|
|
Milgram's Experiment
Monumental! |
Participants were told that they would be delivering shocks in a learning experiment
No shocks were ever actually delivered, confederates were actors Shock level were labeled mild to deadly: 15 to 450+ mv “Teacher” (participant) and “Learner” (confederate) separated into 2 cubicles, but could hear each other “Teacher” instructed to shock “learner” in increasing amounts of voltage, whenever learner made a mistake Scripted errors by “learner” resulted in “teacher” being “required” to administer lethal shock |
|
|
Results of Milgram's Experiment
|
-65% of participants obeyed till the end
-the participants displayed many moral qualms, became distressed, clearly did not want to obey - but did so anyway |
|
|
Variables that influence obedience
|
Decreased sense of personal responsibility
Increased psychological distance from actions and results Dehumanization of victim Progressive escalation of requests – the “slippery slope” of obedience, point of no return |
|
|
Disobedience in Milgram's experiment
|
Although 65% obeyed, 35% did not: what factors were important for those who refused?
Gretchen Brandt (disobeyed in milgram's experiment) grew to adolescence in Nazi Germany and, for the greater part of her youth, was exposed to Hitler’s propaganda. When asked about the influence of her background, she simply remarked, “Perhaps we have seen too much pain.” |
|
|
Compliance
|
A mild form of obedience; we agree to do something simply because someone asks us to, often as a concession
|
|
|
Norm of reciprocity
|
we feel compelled to comply when someone has helped us in the past
|
|
|
“Door in the face” technique
|
If a large request is followed up by a smaller request, compliance with request increases dramatically: “You conceded, now I have to concede”
|
|
|
Group Dynamics
|
The study of mutual influences and groups on each other
|
|
|
Behaving in groups
Social facilitation |
“mere presence” effect: we compete harder when others are nearby
|
|
|
Social inhibition
|
the opposite effect – we sometimes perform more poorly when others are near
|
|
|
Arousal
|
Zajonc says that the effects of other people on our level of arousal can explain the previous two effects
|
|
|
Moderate arousal
|
performance in a group is most enhanced
|
|
|
Too much arousal
|
we experience anxiety and cannot maintain performance at optimal levels
|
|
|
Too little arousal
|
we are sloppy
-could be why some people don't work well in groups |
|
|
Attention
|
Huguet says changes in attention might also be a factor in differing levels of performance
-as attention increases, performance improves |
|
|
Social Loafing
|
Latane (1981) - people work less hard in groups
-no one is in the "audience" and therefore all must perform -consistent across cultures ex: Ringlemann (1913) - in a group of men, each pulled less hard than if pulling solo |
|
|
Deindividuation
|
when the presence of others drastically changes our behaviors and personality because we lose awareness of ourselves as individuals, feel less responsible for our behavior
-uniforms and masks help do this -riots, lynch mobs etc -behavior can become disinhibited, cruel, vicious -role we play: may obscure our individuality as well |
|
|
The Stanford Prison Study
|
Role playing experiment - random assignment of “Prisoner” and “Guard”
-"bad place took over good people" -experiment had to be stopped after only 6 of 14 days; "guards" became sadistic, "prisoners" began to experience full psychological breakdowns ex: Abu Ghraib |
|
|
Issues brought up by stanford prison study
|
-power corrupts
-how hard it is for victims of abuse to speak up -good guards didn't intervene in bad guard's actions -can we trust human nature? |
|
|
Group Polarization
|
group decisions are more extreme than those we make on our own
|
|
|
"Risky Shift"
|
great willingness for a group to take risks than when we are acting as individuals
|
|
|
Processes that affect groups' way of behaving/deciding
|
Confirmation bias
Cognitive dissonance Self Enhancement False Consensus Normative Thinking |
|
|
Confirmation Bias
|
a tendency for people to support their views, independently of whether or not they are true -selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory.
|
|
|
Cognitive dissonance
|
an uncomfortable feeling arises when we have inconsistent ideas -we have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing our interpretation
|
|
|
Self Enhancement
|
the predisposition that we have to distort results so as to maintain a favorable self-view
-sustaining and augmenting a positive view of the self -likely to over-emphasize favorable evaluations of selves, while minimizing critical ones -look for flattering evaluations from others concerning achievements and talents |
|
|
False Consensus
|
the tendency for people to project their way of thinking onto other people -assume that everyone else thinks the same way you do
-assume own beliefs are better than others |
|
|
Normative Thinking
|
relating to an ideal standard or model
|
|
|
"Groupthink"
|
present in highly cohesive groups
-type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without analyzing ideas -Individual creativity and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness -likely to happen when the group is under threat |
|
|
Preventing groupthink
|
Janis (1982)
-Devils advocate -occasional subdivision -"last chance" meeting -outside experts |
|
|
"Wisdom of Groups"
|
under certain conditions, groups arrive at better solutions than individuals
-groups can draw on diversity of experiences, independent of opinion, more information |
|
|
Galton (1906)
|
Weight of an ox experiment
-800 participant each submitted a guess -1,198 pounds: correct answer -1,197 pounds: crowd's mean estimate |
|
|
Helping and Altruism:
"The Bystander Effect" |
The social environment influences helping behavior
-our understanding of the situation influences our decision on acting or not acting -an act of conformity-looks uncool to get emotional -why people don't help when they should |
|
|
Pluralistic Ignorance
|
if others are not doing anything, probably nothing needs to be done
Problem: others are using the same reasoning… |
|
|
Kitty Genovese
|
-murdered on a public street (1964)
-attack lasted over an hour -over 35 witnesses -not a single person helped or called the police -fear of looking stupid? |
|
|
Diffusion of responsibility
|
we feel less compelled because we feel less responsible
-Each bystander feels increasingly less responsible if there are many bystanders -We weigh the costs of helping as well as the benefits -Physical danger weighed as well as psychological cost |
|
|
Number of bystanders
|
More people increases the likelihood that SOMEONE will help, and decreases the likelihood that any ONE will help
|
|
|
Other factors that help our willingness to learn
|
Helping when someone else does
Time pressures Similarity - help people like ourselves, women are also more likely to be helped Just World - "if they are in a bad situation, they must be a bad person" -blaming the victim, bad things don't happen to good people Justification of Helping - people are more likely to donate money when they get a small gift |
|
|
External Bystanders
|
when we hear about genocide in far away countries, how much do we really help?
|
|
|
Psychic Numbing
|
so many people, so far away - abstract numbers
-less likely to feel sympathy (big factor in sympathy -more likely to help an individual |
|
|
Carnegie Hero Fund
|
awards and rewards for people who risk their lives to help strangers
|
|
|
Motivations for volunteering
Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI; Clary et al, 1998) |
Values
understanding enhancement career social protective |
|
|
Vigilantism
|
Observers sometimes DO intervene
ex: NYC cab drivers |
|
|
Conditions people are more likely to help in
|
-strong identification with victim
-crimes that are especially threatening to the local community - prevent recurrence -bystanders are certain (although sometimes mistaken) about the nature of the crime and the identity of the criminal -usually in neighborhoods that are socially homogenous -shared responsibility for illegal actions |
|
|
who is more likely to help
|
someone who has an altruistic personality?
|
|
|
Perry London
|
rescuers and rescued???
Altruism complex-help others before self |
|
|
situational factors for helping
|
people are more likely to help friends - foot in the door
- already invested |
|
|
what type of personality is more likely to help?
|
-spirit of adventurousness
-intense identification with parental model of moral conduct -sense of being socially marginalized |
|
|
Pearl Oliner
|
3 motivating factors:
Commitment to Justice (11%) – Beliefs about how others OUGHT to behave & Strong Attachment to those rescued Social Norms (52%) – Helping is obligatory. Felt helping was expected Empathy (37%) – Feelings of connection to the victim Closeness to parents - taught right/wrong and to question authority |
|
|
Undoing Constraints on Helping
|
Reduce ambiguity
Increase responsibility Guilt and concern for self image. Enlightenment Matching Motivations to Volunteer Opportunities Afforded Teaching Empathy? |
|
|
Legislating Helping?
|
Inaction is more typical than action
-“Good Samaritan” Laws Vermont - $100 fine Minnesota – Petty misdemeanor Wisconsin – up to 30 days in jail and $500 fine |
|
|
Attraction
|
the importance of physical appearance
|
|
|
physical attractiveness stereotype
|
What is beautiful is good
|
|
|
The importance of physical attractiveness is not limited to dating relationships
|
-Judging essays
-Jury decisions -Salaries -Teachers evaluating children |
|
|
"baby faced" facial features
|
-Round face
-Large eyes -Small Nose -High forehead -Smaller Chin |
|
|
competence = facial maturity
|
some facial features affect judgments of competence
-lower forehead -smaller eyes -strong/broader chin |
|
|
Implicit Learning
|
the physical attractiveness stereotype is ingrained in us
-fairy tales with ugly villains encourage this -what about ugly but lovable heros? --shrek?? --does this diminish the stereotype? |
|
|
Familiarity in attraction
|
Proximity
-people like that which is familiar -proximity increases familiarity |
|
|
opposites attract?
|
not really!
these strongly affect our choice in spouse: -race -ethnic origin -social/educational backgrounds -income -religion |
|
|
Love
|
different types of love
three features often examined -presence/absence |
|
|
Intimacy
|
feeling free to talk about anything
feeling close to and understood by the loved one |
|
|
Passion
|
euphoria and sexual excitement
|
|
|
Commitment
|
needing to be with the other person
feeling loyal decision |
|
|
Romantic Love
|
a "wildly emotional state" with "tender and sexual feelings, elation and pain, anxiety and relief, altruism and jealousy..."
ex: Romeo and Juliet |
|
|
Gender differences in romantice love
|
Men
-fall in love more easily and more quickly than women Women -fall out of love more easily than men |
|
|
when romantic love dies down...
|
may result in:
-end to relationship -dislike/indifference -"gentler state of affairs" ex companionate love |
|
|
Companionate Love
|
higher levels of:
-affection -trust -caring -long history of shared experiences |
|
|
The Ultimate Goal (Sternberg)
|
Consummate Love
-blending of all three components -achieved rarely |
|
|
Love Styles (Lee, Hendrick and Hendrick)
|
Eros
Ludus Storage Pragma Mania Agape |
|
|
Eros
|
-Passionate Love
-Physical attraction and sensual satisfaction erotic lovers seek: |
|
|
erotic lovers seek:
|
-rapidly developing, emotionally intense, intimate relationships
-tend to idealize lovers -willing to take risks |
|
|
Ludus
|
-love as a game or pleasant past time for mutual enjoyment
-a series of challenges and puzzles to be solved |
|
|
ludus lovers:
|
date several partners
move in and out of love affairs quickly and easily refuse long-range plans wary of emotional intensity |
|
|
Storage
|
caring, concerned friendship
based on similar interests and pursuits evolves - takes time to develop |
|
|
Storage lovers:
|
desire long term relationship based on trust
most appealing aspect of love = making a home and raising a family together |
|
|
Pragma
|
shopping for suitable mate
based on satisfactory rewards rather than romantic attraction expects that: -the relationship works well -lovers be compatible -satisfy each others' basic or practical needs |
|
|
Mania
|
Possesive
dependent high emotional expressiveness and disclosure low self-esteem |
|
|
Mania lovers:
|
Insecure
fearful of rejection yearns for lover yet anticipates painful relationships attempts to force ones partner into greater expressions of affection |
|
|
Agape
|
all giving
selfless non-demanding |
|
|
Agape lovers:
|
sacrifice own interest in favor of partner
give without expecting a reward not happy unless partner is also happy prepared to share all they have, so vulnerable to exploitation |
|
|
Mental Tests
|
measures of mental abilities
|
|
|
achievement
|
what have you learned? what are your particular skills?
|
|
|
Aptitude
|
What might we predict you could do, if you were given more training or time to learn it? What do you seem particularly suited for?
|
|
|
The study of variation
|
begun as a way of summarizing patterns in such records as birth rates and death rates
bell-shaped |
|
|
"average case"
|
median: the score that separates the top 50% from the bottom 50%
Mean: total of all scores, divided by the number of scores being summed |
|
|
variability
|
the degree to which cases differ from each other
|
|
|
Correlation
|
expresses the relationship between two variables
|
|
|
Covariance
|
the degree to which change in one variable is reliably associated with change in the second variable
|
|
|
scatterplots
|
direction of relationship - negative or positive
strength of that relationship significant "outliers" |
|
|
CAUTION!
|
correlation does not equal causation!
|
|
|
3rd variable
|
the real cause
|
|
|
how to see if a test is reliable
|
may need to give the test more than once
are items within the test answered in a consistent manner? |
|
|
is the test valid?
|
does it make sense as a measure of the skill?
do scores on the test correlate with other tests that measure the same area? does it predict future performance? |
|
|
Intelligence
|
the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience" Gottfredson
distinguished from "book learning or test taking smarts" "catching on, making sense" |
|
|
Binet
|
charged with devising a test to identify schoolchildren who would benefit from remediation
-tested a broad range of capacities |
|
|
ratio computed
|
students performance on the test (the child performed as well as an 11 year old) divided by the child's actual age (child is only 10)
11/10 x 100 = 110 |
|
|
The Psychometric Approach
|
we can be adept in some areas of "intelligence" but much less adept in others
|
