PSYCH 2B03 Lecture Notes - Conventionalism, Attachment Theory, Narcissism

15 views5 pages
Published on 19 Apr 2013
School
McMaster University
Department
Psychology
Course
PSYCH 2B03
Page:
of 5
Lecture 9 part 2
3 Types of Attachment Styles (Ainsworth)
Secure: Child shows little to no distress at absence of mom, often interacts with stranger, readily
comforted when mom returns
“Im mad at you for leaving, but Im glad your back”
Anxious: Child shows high distress at absence of mom, unlikely to interact with stranger, refuses
comfort at return (even though distressed)
There seems to be some mistrust between the parent and the child.
Avoidant: Child shows little to no distress at absence, may interact with stranger, little reaction
to return
Detached from the parent, Not really concerned with the parent
Fourth type that has recently been discovered Disorganized : Child shows distress and
confusion (Main & Hesse, 1990)
Child isn’t sure what to do (it’s a mixture of the other 3)
Problems with repeating it. Cuz child may learn that mother will come back.
What impedes secure attachment?
Non-responsive parenting (parents that do the bare minimum to keep kids alive just
expect kids to be self-reliant. Wont make them form a strong attachment.)
Maternal absence (e.g., incarceration)
Controversy over work influences
Physical abuse
Prenatal drug exposure
Babies exposed to Crack show anxious attachment style
Concerns about Ainsworth’s SST
Construct validity and content validity
Does it assess all of the relevant behaviours?
Does it capture variation over time? (not really cuz they are worreid about
sensitization, diminishing returns the more we use it)
Is it unduly influenced by recent events between parent and child? (“history”
concerns) (if just prior to entering the room, mom yells at kid, it may have
spooked child and they are reluctant to approach mom or soemthing)
Discrete categorization of behaviors
Cultural variation in parenting styles and expectations (what is rigth way to raise our kids
? may different ideas about this)
Perhaps “anxious” style is (or was) functional? perhaps this was functional at one
point, so it is imprinted that strangers are probably gonna hurt you, and maybe its
functional to punish the parent so that it is less likely that they will leave. If you think
through this, there is different ways to interpret the typology.
Does the measure actually show what the theorists claim what it shows.
Extra: Avoidant (maybe they are mature and they are not so anxious when mother leaves and
not so anxious when mother returns.)
Machiavellianism is a personality trait that taps into the degree to which people are willing to
exploit others for their own gain. Term comes from name of a writer from Italy that wrote for a
Prince to give political advice. Prince is Machiavelli advice on how to exploit the power that
comes with being a member of the nobility and to retain that power. Ways you can lead through
force, ways you can lead through persuasion, ways you can lead through pretending you care
about your populous.
Perceived acceptability of behaviors that exploit others
“Dog eat dog world” belief [if other people are gonna exploit you, why not do it
to them 1st or else you’re a sucker]
Cynicism, competitiveness, mistrust, low agreeableness agreements on the following
test correlates with these things; the more Machiavellian they are the more they have
these as well.
The “dark triad” (Paulhus) looks at people with subclinical forms of
psychopathologies (lesser form of conditions we would consider psychopathological).
Dark Triad = Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and subclinical psychopathology. He
found when ppl have all 3 of these in a certain combination that they are more prone to
psychopathology but also tend to be more exploitative and more mistrustful than people
with just one of these.
Representative items from MACH-IV (Christie, 1970)
Test to see if you have Machiavellianism or not Agree or Disagree on the following:
(1) “The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.”
(2) “Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.”
(3) “One should take action only when sure it is morally right.”
Authoritarianism (Also about interpersonal styles, but with a specific type of people)
A concept that was originally studied to understand social movements in Europe in 20th century.
Refers to conventionalism of beliefs, but this doesn’t mean conservatism.
Conventionalism means whatever is the status quo in the given social context. Conventional
doesn’t always mean old, it could just mean whatever is popular or what’s accepted. So if we
look at a society where unusual behavior is normative, then authoritarians would be against what
we call normal behavior. They would be in favor whatever is conventional in their current social-
historical context. Not much tolerance for people who are atypical.
Tendency to submit to authority and rely on authorities for guidance
Conventionalism of beliefs (not always conservatism)
Don’t confuse authority in sense of having power and influence with authority in the sense of
expert on a particular matter.
Authoritarian don’t mean someone who relies on expert opinion before making judgments.
If that were the case scientists would be considered authoritarians. So not an appeal to truth but
just an appeal to whatever the authority is advocating.
Just go along with w/e is advocated by authority figure.
Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno (1903-1969) and Else Frenkel-Brunswik (1908-1958) were
the ones that developed Authoritarianism
These individuals studied what they called fascism. And they created a scale called the f-scale
(California) F-Scale
‘Potentiality for Fascism Scale’ (30 items) more items you agree with, the higher your
authoritarian score is
Agreements indicate authoritarian tendencies
Some items load on multiple scale factors
(Look below)
One of the major problems with this scale is that, if you agree with a lot of these you are
considered authoritarian. But some people are just more prone to agree with questions more than
others just as a general rule. Whatever the 1st option you give them they will agree with. People
with acquiescent response bias will according to this scale would be classified as authoritarian.
But you need to factor that out, so revisions of this scale have tried to cut down on this problem.

Document Summary

Secure: child shows little to no distress at absence of mom, often interacts with stranger, readily comforted when mom returns. Im mad at you for leaving, but im glad your back . Anxious: child shows high distress at absence of mom, unlikely to interact with stranger, refuses comfort at return (even though distressed) There seems to be some mistrust between the parent and the child. Avoidant: child shows little to no distress at absence, may interact with stranger, little reaction to return. Detached from the parent, not really concerned with the parent. Fourth type that has recently been discovered confusion (main & hesse, 1990) Child isn"t sure what to do (it"s a mixture of the other 3) Cuz child may learn that mother will come back. What impedes secure attachment: non-responsive parenting (parents that do the bare minimum to keep kids alive just expect kids to be self-reliant. Wont make them form a strong attachment. : maternal absence (e. g. , incarceration)