LB, WEEK 1

Question 1

What is Social Psychology?

Answer 1

• “Scientific study of social and cognitive processes on the way individuals influence, perceive and relate to others” (Smith, Mackie & Claypool, 2015)
• looks at how we are as a person but also how social influences impact our thoughts and behaviour > influenced by trying to understand contemporary issues in society
• Previous events such as roots of prejudice and Nazism may impact why we behave the way we do (from a social perspective)
• Primarily interested in exploring and developing theories/concepts which help understand personal and social world of humans (what is going on in the lives of people, recognising this is socially bound)

Question 2

What are Individual Differences?

Answer 2

• Aims to explain observable differences between people in terms of underlying psychological differences
• May ask how and why people differ in how they think and feel? (people can vary in their psychological attributes). Do these differences impact the way people behave?
• There is utility in individual differences > people can be classified as certain traits or aspects of themselves such as intelligence or a personality characteristic > individual differences can predict behaviour and performance

Question 3

Fundamental ideas underpinning social psych

Answer 3

• Construction of reality (Ontology): What is real and how do we come to know what is real? This impacts how we measure it > - Realism: There is one universal reality which can be known > Critical Realism: There is one universal reality, partly accessed > Relativism: There are multiple realities + participant accounts are a lived account of their reality
• Pervasiveness of social influence: How important other people are in influencing our thoughts, behaviours and feelings and how important are we in impacting others in the same way? (cannot isolate the social aspect from people > inherently social + reciprocal relationship between the social and the person)

Question 4

Experimental Social Psychology

Answer 4

• Focuses on the positivist + realist ontological approach
• To understand social psychology, specific empirical methods should be taken. > conceptualises complex issues as factors, focuses on altering + measuring variables. > from this view enables development of a model or explanation for social behaviour
• Knowledge is neutral and does not disrupt what is assumed within approaches
• Social world is separate and can be reduced down to factors

Question 5

Critical Social Psychology

Answer 5

• Does not see experimental social psych as the only way of understanding social words > primarily steers towards qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups etc..)
• Knowledge is not inert > has a social function or meaning (the way people talk has an impact and means different things for different people)
• Assumes social world is produced by those within it > it is made meaningful through the interactions we make

Question 6

Conceptualisation of the person in Social Psych

Answer 6

• Different approaches means the person can be conceptualised in different ways
• Experimental perspective: behaviour is a product of innate instincts which has been moulded by social and cultural forces > representative of them lacking freewill
• Can use scientific enquiry to determine universal laws of human nature > if we assume there are factors in society impacting social behaviour then we can operationalise factors impacting human nature + explore them (manipulate them, remove them etc..) > do things scientifically to assess the relationship/impact the factors have on the person
• Critical Social Psych perspective: interpret people as being an intentional actor and has freewill to do as they please > play an active role
• Due to this, scientific enquiry may not be most appropriate method to investigate human nature > it is more complicated than indicated by those showing an experimental approach. More drawn to qualitative method as focus on language + talk is central to critical social psych view

Question 7

Personality as an Individual Difference

Answer 7

• What is personality? comes from latin persona > Image of ourselves which we wish to convey to other people (more critical social approach)
• Critical social perspective would see personality as something quite performative whereas traditional views would see it as something telling us about the person (not a mask people wear but what people are)
• Funder (2004) describes looking for ways we can conceptualise behaviours and ways of being in the world that we can form a taxonomy about > structuring peoples individual characteristics so they can sit on a spectrum

Question 8

Approaches to Personality

Answer 8

• Psychoanalytic approach: Focus on unconscious mind + motivation, competition between internal drives + forces > personality arises out of this conflict + subsequent resolution of internal drives + forces
• Neo-Freudian approach focuses more on childhood + adult relationships + link w/ motivations
• Phenomenological/Humanistic approach: Assumed individuals have a conscious experience of the world + have a level of personal responsibility for the actions they perform such as personality
• Trait approach: How people differ and measure differences > within measures there are factors with a continuum (like extraversion/introversion). Way of conceptualising a person as sitting somewhere on the continuum for individual traits
• Learning approach: Informed by behaviourism + SLT > personality forms from observing others and repeating that behaviour, this can be reinforced by reward/punishment
• Cognitive approach: Focuses on role of perception + memory and different ways which people process information > our personality forms by the way we see things, how we see it and remember it

Question 9

Consistency + Stability

Answer 9

• To predict and understand behaviour it has to be consistent overtime and across different situations
• After 30 yrs, there is little change in personality
• We may only be consistent in some trait + not others
• Situational factors may be important in the expression of individual differences > clusters of situations may mean that particular personalities are consistent which mean ways of measuring ID is consistent than others
• From the big 5 traits, some traits may be more stable than others
• Although there may be time consistency, there is a highlight in issues of situation and social factors > when some traits are seen as more consistent than others, does this mean they are better measured than others? or are we just more consistent on certain traits as people?
• These issues impact how reliable + valid measures of ID are

Question 10

Intelligence as an individual difference

Two-factor model

Answer 10

• two factors influence levels of intelligence
• Spearman (1977) found if children did well in one subject, they did well in others too > developed his two factor theory
• General intelligence (g) underlies all intelligence performance and Specific factors (s) referring to specific ability of the individual to succeed during testing
• Argued a lot of the variance in intelligence testing can be explained by (g) > people scoring high in one class scored similarly for other classes
• Critique by Horn, Catell & Carroll: Argues intelligence represented two main capacities, Fluid intelligence + Crystallised intelligence
• Fluid intelligence (gF): not reliant on prior knowledge + is largely inherent and Crystallised intelligence (gC): product of education + prior experience which increases w/ time and is more responsive to effects of the environment (ed, family)
• Both models assume intelligence can be explained by 2 factors > others argue this is too reductionist + intelligence is more complicated

Question 11

Multiple factor model of intelligence

Answer 11

• Developed because 2-factor models seen as too simplistic > multiple factors are involved + multiple domains of intelligence
• Thurstone (1938) assessed students performance on 56 tests then reduced down to 7 mental abilities using factor analysis (e.g. numerical ability) > theory proposes there are multiple factors involved in intelligence > other researchers who have analysed their data found those who score highly in one category did so in others too > supports Spearman’s (g)
• Sternberg (1999) made a Triarchic theory of intelligence arguing intelligence comes from a balance between analytical, creative + practical domains > for a person to lead a successful life, they must make use of their strengths + compensate for weaknesses in domains.
• Analytical domain focuses on knowledge acquisition, performance + meta-cognitive abilities (ability to evaluate, analyse + compare)
• Creative domain focuses on abilities to complete novel tasks (drawing on skills of invention + discovery)
• Practical domain focuses on tying everything to apply learning > addresses skills like adaptation to situations, selection of info + shaping of EV

Question 12

Emotional intelligence

Answer 12

• Essentially, the ability to notice subtle differences and identify and respond to nuanced kinds of emotions
• ability to control + express our emotions AND ability to understand, interpret + respond to others emotions

Question 13

Ability model of emotional intelligence

Answer 13

• Ability models of EI conceptualise it as a set of interrelated mental abilities associated with emotions + processing information
• EI is a cognitive ability focussing on the processing of emotional info > conceptualised + assessed similarly to IQ > includes perception of emotion in self + others, use of emotion to support decision making + regulation of emotion
• As EI is considered an ability, it is measured using performance tests similar to intelligence testing which can be subjective

Question 14

Trait model of emotional intelligence

Answer 14

• Conceptualises EI as an individual difference or similar to personality theories which categorise EI as a dispositional trait/tendency > draws on an array of social/emotional traits used in daily life like optimism
• As this is seen as traits similar to personality, research is often assessed via self-report (similar to personality trait questionnaires) > but some trait measures also tap into other constructs (are we actually measuring trait EI or personality?)
• To distinguish between the two^, ability models capture maximal performance whilst trait models capture typical performance
• There are mixed models including mental abilities + other characteristics including personality trait

Question 15

Why study the individual and the social?

Answer 15

• Social + individual factors play a role but where they play a role differs and the focus you pay to different elements of the person alter and shape how we conceptualise aspects of the person + their experiences

Question 16

Person-Situation debate

Answer 16

• What is more important in determining what people do? the person or the situation
• Is argued that situational variables are best suited to predictive behaviours in specific situations whereas ID such as personality traits are more likely to predict patterns of behaviour which persist across situations and time
• Person-situation debate takes the two doctrines and suggests how behaviour is then form > the doctrines do not exist in isolation, they work together to lead to a particular behaviour (both traits + situation influence human behaviour)
• Person Situation interaction: for an example, a rockstar who plays heavy metal could be a keen golfer but you may not necessarily expect this of them (on stage you would not see them as a keen golfer but seeing them on a golf course you may not expect them to be a rockstar) > interplay
• Effect of the personality variable depends on the situation the person is in while the effect of the situation depends on the person who is in it > inextricably linked

Question 17

Trait activation theory

Answer 17

• Can be conceptualised using this
• Argues that behavioural expression of the trait requires arousal of that trait by trait-relevant situational cues > the traits are always there but situational/social factors come in and start that trait
• Judge and Zaparta (2015) found that traits are less predictive when the situations are weak and less structured (no activation of the trait) > when social circumstance is not obvious, ID (personality) played a greater role
• Traits are more predictive when the situation activate them because the social circumstance allows for it (such as extraversion in social situations)
• There is an interplay between traits + situational contexts