Class Notes (839,561)
Canada (511,396)
Psychology (3,335)
PSYC 473 (60)

February 20 - PSYC473.docx

5 Pages

Course Code
PSYC 473
Mark Baldwin

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
02/20 Relational Schemas and Insecurity: Possibilities for Change  Much of social and personality psychology involves “where do I fit in with and how do I relate to” the social world  “Insecurity” in attachment and self-esteem are arguably at the core of lots of problems  Insecurity involves implicit processes as well as explicit o Sometimes it’s quite explicit – we’re aware of why we feel this way  Relational Schemas o SELF-Schema linked to OTHER-Schema  Unworthy SELF <==> Critical OTHER o Linked via INTERPERSONAL SCRIPT  Expectancies of how things will paly out  Unworthy SELF <==> Critical OTHER  IF I fail… THEN he will reject me o Shapes and is maintained by various cognitive processes  Attentional Bias o If you have an expectancy of some kind, you’re going to pay attention to things that fit with and confirm his expectancy o Visual Probe Test  Shown a series of trials – fixations and then a probe  Your job is to identify the probe – where and what is the probe?  You’re shown faces on each trial – do the faces change your ability to identify the probe?  A scowling face vs. a neutral face  The idea here is that if your attention is drawn to one of these faces initially, it may influence your ability to quickly recognize the probe  A probe that replaces a frown – your attention is drawn there  Measuring in milliseconds – how quickly you can identify the probe when it replaces a certain face  Rejection bias: relative quickness of identifying targets that replace a frown  That is to say, is your attention drawn to scowling faces?  The faces are shown for no longer than a half a second and then the probe is shown – what catches your attention? o In one study: VPT Rejection Bias as a function of Self-Esteem and Experimental Condition  Measure of rejection bias  People with low self-esteem show more of this bias towards frowning faces than do people with higher self-esteem  Start with an expectancy and within a half a second your attention is being drawn to frowning faces – the point is that there are other people there who are warm  The question is how do you filter out these scowling people?  You start with the expectancy that people are going to reject me and then the scowling faces are noticed because you’re biased  An implicit measureof insecurity –shows thecognitivereaction to this insecurity  Can we do anything about information processing tendencies that underlie insecurity? o Therapy – addresses many social cognitive steps o Other social cognitive interventions? (i.e. can something like priming address this?)  Recall thePriming Studies o Priming techniques  Guided visualization  Subliminal primes of faces, names o Findings:  Self-criticism effects  Also produces effects on Lexical Decision  Positive impact of acceptance schemas  Possibilities for Change o Repetitive priming may help in some way – create a change in the way that people think about things – hasn’t been that successful in the lab o Other ways of training peoples’ way of implicit cognition? o i.e. Tetris – is difficult at first and take time to change  Starts to influence thinking outside the context of the game – i.e. parking  The idea is that you’re doing the same mental operation -- instead of mental rotation operation practice but mental operation more related to the social cognition o Cued Activation  Trigger or cue a schema?  Can you create these cues in the laboratory?  Example of Professor Baldwin’s friend who was relaxed by the sound of a vacuum. He vacuumed and recorded the sounds and played it back when he was feeling stressed.  Social Anxiety, Baldwinand Main, 2001  A study that tried to create a cue  Study 1  Bogus computerized questionnaire o “compare your answers to socially desirable” – Said to the participants: Sometimes when people fill out these questionnaires they want to know what others would think o Gave them feedback as to whether their answers were desirable or not  Bogus feedback  On some trials they would get a set of smiling faces  On other trials they would get negative feedback – frowning faces  The faces were meant to reflect acceptance/approval or rejection/criticism  Didn’t matter what they said everyone got the same feedback and an equal number of smiles/frowns o Conditioned our subjects so that they would hear one tone sequence, and the row of smiling or frowning faces – trying to condition a stimulus for acceptance and rejection o Did this for 10 minutes and 10-15 approval/rejection trials o CS-Acceptance, CS-Rejection o Lexical Decision with Tones on each trial o What happens when you play the tones later? You’ve create the cues and is this is going to have i
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.