Essay plans for social and differential Flashcards
Discuss the person-situation debate, evaluating the relative contributions of dispositional and situational factors to understanding behavior. Provide examples to support your argument.
- Overview
- The person and the situation
- Attachment type predicting romantic relationships
- Intergroup contact influencing prejudice
Introduction paragraph
Personality= individual characteristics , social situations= social influence
- Theory focusing on the social environments
- Theory focusing on the individual personality
Causes a debate to develop, we need to find out which side is more consistently linked to shaping our behaviour. Finding which is more essential can help predict outcomes e.g. risk factors of developing a medical condition
Person situation interaction?
Section A , the person situation paragraph part 1
What is differential psychology, what does it focus on
- It is the study of observable differences between individuals , with a focus on their underlying psychological determinants (Revelle, 2011)
What are its beliefs, suggestions
- Believed that these indiv. Differences shapes our life e.g. job satisfaction the most
- This is called Dispensationalism
General evidence against?
- Common view, overestimation
- Ross,1977 found that participants tended to overestimate internal dispositional causes- stating personal factors could impact how well they played in a co-op game
- No difference found, individual characteristics emphasis rather than the situation
- Termed the fundamental attribution error , more common in the west
- Findings highlight a clear dispositionalist bias, suggesting that participants often under appreciate the power of situations
Section A , the person situation paragraph part 2
What is social psychology
- Studying the way in which our behaviours and thoughts are influenced by the presence of other people (Allport, 1985)
- Key element of group processes , an investigation of the individual in the context of a social situation
Beliefs and suggestions
- Situational factors are most important in shaping behaviour
- This is called Situationism
General evidence ?
- Milgrams shock experiment displayed that participants, when faced in unusual, high stakes settings often carry out behaviours that don’t accurately reflect their personality
- Findings suggest the situation overpowered invi. View of themselves showing situations can shape behaviour. Reductionist?
Section A , the person situation paragraph part 3
Meta analysis
- meta-analysis reports that the average effect size in relation to the influence of a situation is about .21, with personality accounting for .2 ( Richard 2003)
- This highlights the idea that the effects of the social situation are not greater than individual . Equal?
Interactionism
- Lewin 1936 states that every event depends on both the state of the person and environment at the same time, with equal importance
- Interactionism, work together. hollistic understanding
- Situational selection, type of dynamic interactionism
- Our personalities may shape the situations we place ourselves in, impacting behaviour
Evidence is largely inconsistent when wanting to distinguish which side is more prominent
To gain more comprehensive understanding we must look at the theories related to each side of the debate
Section A : Attachment type predicting romantic relationships paragraph pt 1
Attachment type description
- Attachments behaviours like physical and psychological proximity seeking
- Intensity of this is moderated by our attachment type
Brenan et al experience in close relationship 36-item inventory; type influenced behaviours exhibited within relationship . The extent to which a person seeks these behaviours
- 3 options;
- attachment related anxiety= strong desire for closeness with intense worries about a partners availability
- Attachment related avoidance= discomfort with closeness and a preference fo emotional distance
- Attachment securitt= low scores on both dimensions
- Overall these are trait like dispositions and said to underpin a relationship
Attachment type= predict dysfunctionality
- Simpson 2011 looked at empathetic accuracy within dating and married couples and measured attachment styles
- Avoidance less accurate, anxiety more accurate
- How does it relate to their dispositions?avoidants emotionally detach themselves from the situation = less accuracy
- Anxious= more vigilant as they want to achive their interpersonal goal associated to their type = assuring partners availability
- Perhaps making them too hypervigilant to concerns
Section A Attachment type predicting romantic relationships paragraph pt 2
Overall behaviours can impact satisfaction
- Chan 2012= insecure attachments generally reported lower satisfaction
- Assessed globally and daily
- Not explained by other factors e.g. big 5
- Shows dysfunctional behaviours they engage due to their insecurity has lead to dissatisfaction
Interactionism?
- Effect sizes often moderate, with inconsistency (Shaver 2016)
- Suggests insecure indv. Are not having dysfunction. Other factors .context of the situation may play a role in dysfunction
- Peters 2024 looked into the interaction between the two
- Secure partners acted as a protective against dysfunction (higher satisfaction)
- Suggests effect of ind style is modified by partners style, acting as a ‘insecurity buffer’ . Dysfunction depends on a mix of yours and partners style
- So the impact of our dispositional factors may be shaped by the indiviudalds around us (partner) and their attachment style. Satisfaction isn’t determined by just one thing
Section A :4 . Intergroup contact influencing prejudice paragraph pt 1
Intergroup bias description
- Unfair emotional or behavioural response towards another group that disadvantages them via privileging members of ones own group
- Leads to prejudice, stereotyping
Ways to prevent it (intergroup contact)
- The contact hypothesis (Allport,1954)
- Imtergroup hostility may decrease if we bring members of different groups together, face to face
- Overall focus of the group and situation
- Direct intergroup contact (e.g. working co cooperatively )
- Brown et al 2003 importance of interdependence, group working towards a shared goal
- White university students displayed more positive attitudes towards back people when working in the same team rather than individually there no co-operation is needed
- Findings show that we have the ability to decrease levels of prejudice behaviour if we put ourselves in a situation where contact is not only available but interdependence is key
- Meta analysis support reports that these interventions only reduce prejudice in some people, doesn’t work for all. Why? Individual factors (Hewstone 2010)
Section A :4 . Intergroup contact influencing prejudice paragraph pt 2
Individual factors involved?
- Right wing authoritarianism
- Associated with conventionalism and low openness to experience (Miller et al 2013)
Interactionism
- It has been found that this trait moderates the impact of interventions carried out. (Turner 2020)
- Overall, it is our dispositional traits that moderate the effectiveness of the situations we put ourselves in .
Section B : adult attachments essay overview
1.Intro paragraph
2. Attachment orientations and regulation
3.Attachment style guiding satisfaction and breakups
4. Interactions with partners attachment style
5. Conclusion
Section B : adult attachments introduction paragraph
What is attachment, what does it include
- Attachments behaviours like physical and psychological proximity seeking
- Intensity of this is moderated by our attachment type
Style is measured on Brenan et al experience in close relationship 36-item inventory; type influenced behaviours exhibited within relationship . The extent to which a person seeks these behaviours
- 3 options;
- attachment related anxiety= strong desire for closeness with intense worries about a partners availability
- Attachment related avoidance= discomfort with closeness and a preference fo emotional distance
- Attachment security= low scores on both dimensions
- Overall these are trait like dispositions and said to underpin a relationship
- Style destines you to dysfunctionality ?
- Reductionist, partner may play an influence
- allows more holistic understanding of relationship experiences
Section B : adult attachments , Attachment orientations and regulation second paragraph pt1
Overview
- Recent years divorce rates= going up , relationship instability
- Increasing difficulty to maintain long term relationships.
- Predictive value of styles 1987 Hazan and Shaver
- So styles have an impact
Guiding our choices
- Styles affect the extent we are motivated to carry out attachment related behaviours .
- Simpson 2019 looked at peoples attachment types + preferences when thinking about a hypothetical partner
- Found axious people gravitate towards indivualds that provide warmth and commitment over attractiveness and status . Faccilattes long term
- This was the opposite for avoidants . Faccilitates short term
- Results match the interpersonal goals related to each style
- E.g. avoidants devalue warmth due to their discomfott with closeness
- Suggests that our styles may influence our choices
Section B : adult attachments , Attachment orientations and regulation second paragraph pt2
Guiding our behaviours
- Simpson 2011 looked at empathetic accuracy within dating and married couples and measured attachment styles
- Avoidance less accurate, anxiety more accurate
- How does it relate to their dispositions?avoidants emotionally detach themselves from the situation = less accuracy
- Anxious= more vigilant as they want to achieve their interpersonal goal associated to their type = assuring partners availability
- Perhaps making them too hypervigilant to concerns
- Overall findings support the notion that attachment styles influence the choices an individuals make when maintaining a relationship . Basing their interpersonal goals of the related style onto their relationship choices/behaviours
Section B : adult attachments , attachment style guiding satisfaction and breakups third paragraph pt 1
Overall behaviours can impact satisfaction
- Chan 2012= insecure attachments generally reported lower satisfaction
- Assessed globally and daily
- Not explained by other factors e.g. big 5
- Mediated by relationship self-efficacy
- E.g. avoidants= know they aren’t good as a partner due to emotional distance . explaining dissatisfaction
- Shows dysfunctional behaviours and thoughts they engage due to their insecurity has lead to dissatisfaction
Section B : adult attachments , attachment style guiding satisfaction and breakups third paragraph pt 2
Breakups
- Dissatisfaction often leads to breakups
- Shown as insecure attachment orientations are linked to increase likelihood of breaking up and divorce (Shaver 2016)
- Findings highlight how overall our individual attachment style plays a significant role in all aspects of a relationship
- Effect sizes often moderate, with inconsistency (Shaver 2016)
- Suggests insecure indv. Are not having dysfunction. Other factors .
- Most studies rely on self report measures, reliance on the . Knowledge about themselves
- Some attachment system functioning are unconscious, with limited aspect (Shaver,2016)
- Therefore, cannot trust indiv. 100% and we cannot be sure we are accurately testing the impact of attachment styles. May explain small effect size
- Look at both the indiv and the partner for a deeper understanding?
Section B : adult attachments , interactions with partner attachment style fourth paragraph
- Partner effects= own attachment affects partners adjustment
- Insecurity also associated with partners satisfaction Naud 2013
Interactive effects - Aimed to see if both inidv. And partner attachment interacts with one another+ influence relationship
- Effect of own style on adjustment is modified by partners style
- For example if being with secure can act as a ‘insecurity buffer’ for a insecure
- Peters 2024
- Large sample married couples, measure dissolution rate over time
- Secure partners acted as a protective against dysfunction (higher satisfaction)
- Suggests effect of ind style is modified by partners style, acting as a ‘insecurity buffer’ . Dysfunction depends on a mix of yours and partners style
- Findings provides hope
- Implies us our attachment style doesn’t destermine us for dysfunction
- We can prevent this by who we choose as a partner
Section B : adult attachments , final paragraph conclusion
Conclusion
- Style + partner
- Research into this field important for real life applications
- Better identification we are in behaviours we may exhibit as an insecure= better informed= can work at overcoming these
- E.g.emotion focused therapy for couples involves regulation of emotional behaviour
Section B: Intergroup bias overview
1.Intro paragraph
2.Direct contact
3.Solution of indirect contact
4. Imagined intergroup contact
Section B: Intergroup bias intro paragraph
Intergroup bias description
- Unfair emotional or behavioural response towards another group that disadvantages them via privileging members of ones own group
- Leads to prejudice, stereotyping
- Need to reduce this , Monteith 2002 = repeated practise controlling prejudice became automatic
- Shows interventions into this may be effective in reducing bias
- Can be done through Direct contact with the affected grouo
- Sometimes not possible e.g. culturally, geographically and so
- Indirect contact most be relied upon in the reduction of prejudice
Section B: Inter group bias , direct contact second paragraph pt 1
The contact hypothesis (Allport,1954)
- Imtergroup hostility may decrease if we bring members of different groups together, face to face
- Therefore investigating direct contact may be proven effective when wanting to develop interventions
Section B: Inter group bias , direct contact second paragraph pt 2
Direct contact
- Optimal conditions: such as having equal status, working co operative and acquaintance potential
- Co-operative element investigation= Brown et al 2003 importance of interdependence, group working towards a shared goal
- White university students displayed more positive attitudes towards back people when working in the same team rather than individually there no co-operation is needed
- Findings show that we have the ability to decrease levels of prejudice behaviour if we put ourselves in a situation where direct contact is available but only effective is the optimal condition of co-operation is needed
- Acquaintance potential element investigation= Davies 2016 longitudinal study looking at students that had recently met a potential friend from an outgroup
- Found intergroup processes played a significant role in fostering positive attitudes towards the outgroup
- Because the outgroup member is seen as an induvial instead of a group.
- Ultimately shows these optimal conditions are essential in the influence of direct contact in the increase of positive attitudes, concluding that direct contact is an effective tool for reducing prejudice
Section B: intergroup bias, indirect contact third paragraph pt 1
Sometimes direct contact is not possible
- Main critique of direct contact is that real world contact is unlikely to naturally occur with an outgroup due to various reasons e.g. politically in protastants and catholics
- This means that in groups and outgroups can never reduce prejudice if we rely on only direct contact interventions
Extended contact hypothesis
- Knowing ingroup members have close relationships with outgroups lead to pos intergroup attitudes (Hewstone, 2014)
- Hypothesised this reduces intergroup anxiety of outgroup rejection, causing positive relationships to be facilitated
Section B: intergroup bias, indirect contact third paragraph pt 2
Study
- Eller 2012 investigated this white students . The volume of extended and extended contact measured along with affective prejudice
- Interaction between extent of your direct contact and extended contact
- If people had high direct contact , extended contact had no effect with prejudice
- Inidv that didn’t have friends of their own in the outgroup
- That had Extended contact= high –> lower affective prejudice
- Shows that indirect contact can have equally successful results to direct contact however only when opportunities for direct contact were limited
Critique
- Though meant to be seen as alternative when contact isn’t possible there is still a reliance on direct contact
- Need to know somebody that has contact with the outgroup
- In segregated communities might not be possible therefore not as feasible for all types of group relation
Section B: intergroup bias, imagined intergroup contact fourth paragraph pt 1
The imagined contact hypothesis
- Mentally rehearsing a positive meeting with an outgroup member can increase attitudes to the outgroup and lower intergroup anxiety (Crisp,2012)
- As opposed to direct and indirect contact, contact is not needed at all so very useful for highly segregated groups
