Sept 11 Flashcards
vulnerability/risk factors
variables
associated with maladjustment/negative outcomes
promotive factors
variables
associated with positive outcomes across all levels of the risk
protective factors
variables
disrupt the impact of a risk factor
ie. when risk factor is high, protective factor leads to a better outcome
ie. if discrimination is a risk factor, a protective factor interacts with disc to attenuate its negative effects
variables that only involve vulnerability
presence of variable predicts outcome
but absence of variable doesn’t necessarily lead to positive outcome
ie. child abuse, teen pregnancy
variables that are only promotive
presence of variable predicts outcome
but absence of variable doesn’t necessarily lead to negative outcomes
ie. talent in one specific area, mentor
variables that are both promotive and a risk
both extremes of the variable predict functioning
one extreme positive and one extreme negative
curvilinear effects
the opposite extreme of the variable predict negative outcomes
ie. parental control, poverty and affluence
ie. family income’s effect on drug abuse
moderation
the strength of association between X and Y gets STRONGER or WEAKER depending on M
mediation
X causes M
then M causes Y
X can also directly cause Y (partial mediation) or not directly cause Y (partial mediation)
partial mediation
X can directly cause Y
or not directly cause Y
moderation: example of a protective effect
when social support is LOW, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 5
when social support is MEDIUM, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 2.5
when social support is HIGH, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 0
mediation example
LGBTQ discrimination causes internalized heterosexism (p < 0.05)
Internalized heterosexism causes depression (p < 0.05)
LGBTQ discrimination directly causes depression (p < 0.05)
both DIRECT and INDIRECT effects here:
1. direct - LGBTQ disc causes depression
2. indirect - LGBTQ disc indirectly causes depression VIA internalized heterosexism
protective factors are always…
moderators
ie. social support is a moderator and protective factor because it makes discrimination less predictive of depression
causal chain
mediation
change in strength of association between 2 variables based on 3rd variable
moderation
need for models for those specifically from marginalized groups
lots of psych research take DEFICITS-BASED APPROACHES
deficits-based approaches
white individuals are the REFERENCE group (or men - concept applies beyond race/ethnicity)
any difference relative to White people = abnormality & inferiority
examples of deficits-based approaches
- POC engage in more authoritarian parenting than whites, therefore POC are worse parents
^ISSUE: parenting practices differ across cultures
- Black kids are more likely to get suspended than White kids, therefore Black kids are more deviant
^ignores context that explains why diffs in suspension rates systematically exist
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”
claimed skin pigmentation is related to aggression and sexuality in humans
hypothesis = darker pigment people are more aggressive
proposal that Black people are more psychopathic than White people
thoroughly refuted findings
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “poverty and culture”
“attempts to attribute longterm poverty to social barriers, such as racial discrimination or lack of jobs, have failed”
“racial minorities, however, all come from non-Western cultures where most people seek to adjust to outside conditions rather than seeking change”
“these differences best explain why minorities - especially Blacks and Hispanics - typically respond only weakly to chances to get ahead through education and work, and also why crime and other social problems run high in low-income area”
WTF.
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “declines in religiosity predict increases in violent crime - but not among countries with relatively high average IQ”
from abstract: “lower rates of religiosity were more strongly associated with higher homicide rates in countries with lower average IQ. These findings raise questions about how secularization might differentially affect groups of different mean cognitive ability”
wtf - assumes certain countries have lower IQs??
also all correlational
used ‘national IQ data’ from a RETRACTED article - it was “plagued by lack of representativeness of the samples, questionable support for some of the measures, an excess of researcher degrees of freedom, and concern about the vulnerability of the data to bias”
homicide data: their proxy for violent crime
homicide data described as “unreliable, given that many countries included in the data set provided no actual data on homicides that had occurred. instead, in these countries, homicide rates were estimated on the basis of other variables that may or may not be closely related to homicide rates”
