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;
84 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Assumptions that MUST be true to argue intelligence differences are genetic |
1) Cognitive ability is a single general entity 2) Cognitive ability has a heritability of 40-80% and is genetically based 3) IQ is immutable or fixed over the lifespan 4) IQ measures intelligence and ranks linearly 5) IQ tests can measure this reliably and validly 6) IQ tests are not biased |
|
|
Social Cognition and Differences between Social Groups |
1) Situational factors influence cognitive ability and demonstration of intelligence 2) Measures may be biased 3) Intelligence is not immutable nor is it a single construct 4) Understanding how groups differ, it should be possible to eliminate group differences |
|
|
Stereotype Threat |
By Claude Steele Made in 1995 The concern that is experienced when one feels at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about ones group Ex. Racial differences in intelligence, sex differences in math/science |
|
|
Conditions Necessary to Elicit Stereotype Threat |
1) Knowledge of Stereotype 2) Group Membership 3) Group Identification 4) Domain Identification 5) Evaluation |
|
|
ST - Knowledge of Stereotype |
Must be aware of the existences of the stereotype for it to have an impact Stereotypes are not true, just social constructions |
|
|
ST - Group Membership |
Membership in the stigmatized group needs to be salient, identities must be active Explicit: Overt references like writing one's race on a test Implicit: Subtle cues about group identity, "Solo status" in a class Individual differences: People are aware of their identity |
|
|
ST - Group Identification |
ST affects only if one self-identifies with the stigmatized group. It's possible to be a member of a group, but not identify with it Multiple Categories: People can be part of many categories but identify differently Do Asian females taking math test identify more with the Asian part (positive stereotype) or as a female (negative stereotype) |
|
|
ST - Domain Identification |
Stigmatized individuals must care about their ability to perform Disengaged individuals do not suffer ST because they don't care about evaluations Ex. Engineering majors care more about math test than psych majors |
|
|
ST - Evaluation |
Need to have a potential for social evaluation, threats come from concerns about confirming stereotypes Evaluation can occur ate either the individual or group level: Individual: direct examination of the self Group: When individual performance contributes to group performance |
|
|
Mechanisms of Stereotype Threat |
1) Cognitive 2) Affective 3) Motivational |
|
|
Cognitive Mechanism of ST |
ST creates a mental load, drains resources needed for task performance 3 Primary Types of Loads: 1) Uncertainty reduction 2) Rumination 3) Performance Monitoring Miss important information |
|
|
Affective Mechanism of ST |
Negative emotions bias attention for threat inducing bias More likely to experience ambiguous situations as threatening Anxiety leads to avoiding stereotype relevant situations |
|
|
Motivational Mechanism and its Sub Processes |
Efforts to avoid performing poorly can paradoxically impair performance 1) Reactance 2) Inflexible Perseverance 3) Self-Handicapping |
|
|
Reactance |
Motivational Mechanism Sub Processes Stigmatized individuals seek to behave like dominant group people, reacting against a stereotype to appear like a non-stigmatized person, shun behaviors/attitudes |
|
|
Inflexible Perseverance |
When trying hard to solve problems/perform, people rely on previously-learned solutions Decreases cognitive flexibility |
|
|
Self-Handicapping |
Stigmatized individuals anticipate failure in ST, so decrease effort and preparation Impairs performance through decreased effort output |
|
|
Reducing ST Categories |
1) Cognitive 2) Affective 3) Motivational |
|
|
Reducing ST - Cognitive |
Teaching ST reduces cognitive load Reduces uncertainty, ruminate less Frees up up resources |
|
|
Reducing ST - Affective |
Self Affirmation: Respond to threats by affirming alternative domains that are unrelated Expressing Writing: Writing about one's worries and anxieties can decrease feelings of anxiety during a task |
|
|
Reducing ST - Motivational |
Channel effort more effectively, work towards approach type reactance effects, alters the type of motivation |
|
|
Definition of a Disease |
1) Suffering - Can have a disease and not suffer 2) Statistical Deviation - not necessarily 3) Needs Medical Treatment - not necessarily 4) A lesion in the brain - not necessarily |
|
|
Harmful Dysfunction |
Wakefield 1992 Disorders are: - Harmful: impairing functioning in normative society -Dysfunction: something is not necessarily working |
|
|
Defining Psychopathology |
Fuzzy concepts, theoretical construct Need fallible indicators |
|
|
Function of Diagnostic Systems |
Facilitate Communication Descriptions highlight key features Establishes relationships between disorders Facilitates prediction |
|
|
Emil Kraeplin |
Came up with Karapelinian Dichotomy between manic depression (depression and bipolar) and dementia parecox (schizophrenia) Father of modern psychiatric diagnosis |
|
|
DSM-5 |
Initially had 106 disorders, initially referred to as reactions, paragraph descriptions Provides black and white descriptions and have to have x number of symptoms to have y disease |
|
|
Criticisms and Critiques of the DSM-5 |
1) Overpathologization of normal problems 2) Retention of categorical (rather than dimensional) system 3) Does not factor in comorbidity 4) Symptoms based on symptoms not etiology, not objective lab results |
|
|
Categorical vs Dimensional Approaches |
Categorical - Discrete categories Dimensional - more of a scale |
|
|
Advantages of Categorical Approaches |
1) In Line with medical model 2) Simplifies communication 3) Natural inclination to use categories 4) Maps well onto clinical decision making (something that insurance companies like) 5) Lends itself to identify rare but qualitatively different syndromes |
|
|
Advantages of Dimensional Approaches |
1) Cut offs are arbitrary 2) Preserves a lot more information 3) More reliable 4) More power for research 5) Less likely to create arbitrary distinctions that lead to border categories 6) Likely maps on more closely to true nature of clinical phenomena |
|
|
Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) |
Matrix applies different units of analysis Rows: various dimensions of function (cognitive systems, regulatory systems, valence systems, etc.) Columns: Units of analysis (genes, molecules, behavior, etc.) |
|
|
Arguments Against Biological Reductionism |
1) Having biological aspects does not make biology the most important level of examination 2) Not everything etiological is "inside the skin" 3) Psychiatric disorders have complex expressions and are not the sole reason of one thing usually 4) Psychiatric symptoms are only dysfunctional in certain contexts |
|
|
Beck's Cognitive Triad |
For Depression 1) Self 2) World 3) Future Have negative thoughts about all three and all three affect each other |
|
|
Abramson and Alloy |
Learned Hopelessness Order: 1)Negative attribution style 2) Negative life event seen as: negative consequences, negative implications of self, stable and global causes 3) Leads to hopelessness 4) Leads to depression |
|
|
Depression Effects on Attention |
Attention: More difficulty detaching from negative material Bias away from negative in childhood, towards in adulthood |
|
|
Initial Effectiveness between CBT and Psychopharmacology |
1) Depression: Pharm is better initially 2) Anxiety: Similar for both 3) Eating Disorders: CBT better initially 4)Schizophrenia: Pharm is better initially |
|
|
Long Term Outcomes of CBT and Pharm |
CBT is lower Can use both together to make impacts last longer |
|
|
Debate between Pharm and CBT |
Drug companies say drugs are better Clinicians say CBT is better Dobson (1989) meta-analysis says CBT is better Gaffan(1995): Dobson was biased, found allegiance biased analysis |
|
|
Cognitive Based Therapy |
Stefan Hoffman and David Barlow Working on cognitive factors behind disorders, using reappraisal methods |
|
|
Cognitive Restructuring |
1) Identify fault cognition that is root of problem through observations and implicit measurements 2) Challenge cognitions and replace them with more rational stuff |
|
|
Mindfulness and Mediation |
1) Mindfulness: Noticing internal/external cues 2) Mediation: relaxation via self-regulation Inward attention leads to: 1) Greater sensitivity to environment 2) Openness to new info 3) Alters neural functioning |
|
|
Detractors for Mindfulness and Mediation |
1) Mediation labels negative emotions as bad, grief is part of the process 2) Some techniques are emotion suppression 3) Detachment can lead to self-centeredness |
|
|
Exposure and Acceptance in CBT |
Exposes individuals to unpleasant situations to demonstrate that there are no actual negative consequences so they are able to accept their responses and feelings Acceptance strategies counteract maladaptive behaviors |
|
|
Attention Retraining |
Behavioral method to reduce attentional bias, teaches how to redirect attention from anxiety inducing info Alter what is salient to people Works with antecedent emotion regulation |
|
|
Attention Retraining Process |
1) Find what is salient (people with anxiety/depression are biased for threatening cues) 2) Break attention from negative info: Disengagement |
|
|
Differences between Attention Retraining and CBT |
1) AR reorganizes attention, no reappraisal of cognitions 2) CBT is heterogenous (many techniques), AR isolates attention from threats (that's it) 3) AR is more "upstream" (closer to the source) |
|
|
Social Skills Training |
Used to augment different approaches Skills - specific behaviors to function properly (slightly subjective) |
|
|
Dimensions of Social Skills |
1) Peer Relation Skills - how to address social environment 2) Self-Management Skills - regulatory behaviors 3) Compliances Skills - incorporating social rules and societal norms 4) Academic Skills- function in productive environment 5) Assertion Skills - initiating functional behaviors (starting to do stuff) |
|
|
Benefit of Skills Training |
Associated with reading cues from others and signaling correct emotions Helps autistic people, conduct disorders, and social phobias Helps with any maladaptive interpersonal interaction patterns |
|
|
Enhancement Bias |
Preference for Information that supports positive beliefs about a partner and a relationship |
|
|
Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) |
Asked partners to rate themselves, rate ideal partner, and rate their actual partner Idealized their loved ones, rated partners closer to ideal partner more than partner's self beliefs More optimistic to our own relationships and less accurate than friends and family |
|
|
Diagnosticity Bias |
Preference for information that may indicate important qualities in a partner or relationship Could lead to reading in between the lines too much More in the beginning |
|
|
Confirmation Bias |
A preference for information that supports what we already know about a partner or relationship |
|
|
De La Ronde & Swann Jr (1998) |
Spouses asked to rate partners social skills then given bogus psych assessment of skilled or inept When spouses disagreed with feedback reject the feedback in both conditions Partners contemplating leaving process info in ways to support these feelings, absolves one of responsibility |
|
|
Self-Serving Bias |
Take credit for our successes and blame others for failures Happens when relationships aren't going well, blame it on the partner |
|
|
Sentiment Override |
Tendency for partners' global feelings about their relationship to color their perceptions of specific behaviors and experiences Ex. when in a fight, more likely to enhance info and overlook positive info |
|
|
Adult Attachment |
By Phillip Shaver Found similariteis between infant caregiver and adult romantic relationships Two dimensions 1) Anxiety - Worry whether partner is available, responsive, and attentive 2) Avoidance - Tend to not rely on others or open up to others |
|
|
Types of Attachment Models |
1) Secure - positive view of self and of others, value relationships, but maintain autonomy and independence 2) Preoccupied - high anxiety, low self-worth, usually seen as needy, good views of others 3) Dismissing - high in avoidance, bad view of others, tend to stay independent and self-sufficient, avoid closeness, dismiss need for intimacy 4) Fearful - high in avoidance and anxiety, avoiding intimacy and closeness |
|
|
Correlates of Secure Attachment |
1) More positive emotions during interactions 2) More positive beliefs about relationships 3) Less loneliness 4) Greater adaptiveness to relational conflict 5) Longer duration of relationships |
|
|
Correlates of Anxious Attachment |
1) More negative emotions 2) Falls in and out of love more 3) Jealous 4) Self-disclosure and early intimacy 5) Likes sex for physical contact 6) Shorter duration of relationships |
|
|
Correlates of Avoidant Attachment |
1) More negative emotions 2) Believe that true love doesn't exist 3) Greater loneliness 4) More distancing responses 5) More promiscuity |
|
|
Accommodation and Assimilation |
Accommodation - Existing beliefs change to integrate new info Assimilation - New info is integrated without changing any existing beliefs |
|
|
Sprecher (1999) |
Partners rate satisfaction with relationship every year for a while and how it's changed Every assessment: partners reported increased satisfaction Perception of relationship clouds judgement |
|
|
Adaptive Attributions |
How we understand others' behaviors Dimensions: 1) Locus - refers to location of cause of behavior, internal = them, external = outside factor 2) Stability - duration of cause (short term vs. long term) |
|
|
Flexible Standards |
MacDonald and Ross Friends and family can predict better than partners can on future of relationship Could rate their own satisfaction better than friends and families |
|
|
Card Sorting Task |
21 positive terms, 18 negative, select cards that describe partner and sort them into meaningful group Patterns 1) Compartmentalization - separated positive and negative terms into different aspects 2) Integration - kept positive and negative in same aspect Short term: integration is better |
|
|
Cognitive Compexity |
The extent to which a person's thoughts about particular subjects are well integrated and take multiple dimensions into consideration |
|
|
Rating Photographs Study |
Conditions: rate attractive member of opposite sex, rate somebody that is into you Threat had to be great enough to be noticed, but not so much that it overwhelms the motivation to protect the relationship |
|
|
Factors for Attraction |
1) Personality - want honest, loyal, understanding, dependable, etc.
2) Similarity - more similar is more attracted for validation, easy to get along with, going to like us 3) Reciprocity - like people who like us 4) Familiarity - more familiar is more likable, mere exposure effect |
|
|
Pratfall Effect |
Being attracted to people who have endearing flaws |
|
|
Social Exchange Theory |
Bersheid and Reis (1998) People evaluate their social relationships in economic terms (cost vs rewards) Personality - high reward, low cost Similarity - high reward Familiarity - low cost Reciprocity - high reward |
|
|
Matching Phenomenon |
People tend to pair up with partners similar to them in appearance Desire to avoid rejection and pursue successful relationships |
|
|
Misattribution of Arousal |
People can misattribute where feelings come from, can associate feeling x with source y |
|
|
Speed Dating Study |
Finkel Eastwick and Matthews (2007) Prequestionaires, People that said they cared about physical attractiveness were not more likely to want to date physically attractive people |
|
|
Festinger, Shacter, and Back (1950) |
Proximity in Mate Selection People found that closest friends were closest neighbors |
|
|
Suicidal vs Non Suicidal Self Injury |
Suicidal: looking to kill Non-suicidal: not looking to kill, just harm |
|
|
Difference Between Factors of Suicidal and Non Suicidal Self Injury |
Methods: suicidal is more severe Prevelance: non suicidal is more prevalent Age of Onset: Non-suicidal at early teens, suicidal at late teens |
|
|
Suicidal and Non Suicidal Motivations |
Non Suicidal: Decrease sadness, punishment, get attention Suicidal: To die, to escape |
|
|
Suicide Theories |
1) Social and Moral Integration 2) Escape 3) Hopelessness 4) Pyschache |
|
|
Social and Moral Integration Theory for Suicide |
Durkheim 1987 1) Egoistic: low social regulation 2) Altruistic: high social integration 3) Anomic: Low moral regulation 4) Fatalistic: high moral regulation (oppression) |
|
|
Escape Theory for Suicide |
Baumeister 1990 1) Falling short of standards 2) Attributes to self 3) High Self awareness 4) Negative affect 5) Cognitive deconstruction |
|
|
Hopelessness Theory of Suicide |
Beck et al 1985, 1990 Based on many systems, having no hope |
|
|
Psychache Theory of Suicide |
Distorted psych needs Factors: 1) Psychache 2) Press (stress/pressure) 3) Perturbation (need to alleviate pain) |
|
|
Limitations of Prior Risk Factor Research |
1) Focus on same sociodemographic and psych risk factors 2) Limited research examining differences predicting ideation and attempts 3) Rely heavily on reported data 4) Few studies have looked into combining risk factors |
