Individual and Social Cognition Notes - Angela, Bruna, Josie PDF

**Angela's Lectures** *Lecture 1* **Thought Suppression: Key Revision Notes** ------------------------------------------- ### **Important Themes** - **Automaticity vs Control:** Balancing conscious and unconscious processes in social cognition. - **Perception vs Interpretation:** Naviga...

**Angela's Lectures** *Lecture 1* **Thought Suppression: Key Revision Notes** ------------------------------------------- ### **Important Themes** - **Automaticity vs Control:** Balancing conscious and unconscious processes in social cognition. - **Perception vs Interpretation:** Navigating the world using subjective interpretations. - **Intuitions:** People have innate abilities to interpret others\' behaviours and intentions. ### **Key Concepts** - **Suppression vs Repression:** - **Suppression:** Conscious and intentional effort to avoid certain thoughts. - **Repression:** Unconscious mechanism to exclude thoughts from awareness (Freud, 1915). - **Origins of Research:** - Dostoevsky (1863): Highlighted difficulty in avoiding specific thoughts (e.g., "Don't think of a polar bear!"). - Dan Wegner: Pioneered research on thought suppression and rebound effects. ### **Thought Suppression Experiments** - **Classic Experiment (Wegner, 1987):** - **Suppression Phase:** Participants avoid thinking about a \"white bear\" but often fail (rebound effect). - **Expression Phase:** When allowed to think freely, suppressed thoughts emerge more frequently. ### **Cognitive Theories of Rebound** 1. **Distracter Association Theory:** - Environmental cues linked to suppressed thoughts trigger rebound (limited evidence). 2. **Goal Interruption Theory (Zeigarnik Effect):** - Suppressed thoughts remain activated due to unfulfilled goals (Martin, 1993). 3. **Ironic Process Theory (Wegner, 1992):** - **Monitoring Process:** Automatic search for signs of failure (non-conscious). - **Controlled Process:** Conscious effort to find distractors (requires cognitive resources). - Failures in suppression occur under cognitive load. ### **Factors Exacerbating Rebound Effects** 1. **Cognitive Load:** - Suppression becomes harder under time pressure or multitasking (Wegner & Erber, 1992). - **Example:** Participants under cognitive load show more stereotypical responses (Wegner et al., 1994). 2. **Emotion Inhibition:** - Suppressing emotions like anger or mood states leads to elevated physiological responses (e.g., blood pressure). 3. **Craving Inhibition:** - Suppression of cravings (e.g., smoking, eating) increases desire for the suppressed item (e.g., Salkovskis, 1994). ### **Individual Differences** - **Trauma & PTSD:** Suppressing traumatic thoughts predicts worse symptoms (e.g., Shipherd & Beck, 1999). - **OCD:** Obsessionality correlates with difficulty in suppression (Janeck & Calamari, 1999). - **Depression:** Suppression of negative thoughts prolongs depressive episodes (Wenzlaff et al., 1998). ### **Behavioural Impacts** - Stereotypes: Efforts to suppress stereotypes backfire under cognitive load, leading to increased biased behaviour (e.g., Macrae et al., 1994). - Aggression: Suppression of aggressive fantasies linked to increased aggressive behaviours (Nagtegaal et al., 2005). ### **Key Studies** 1. **Wegner et al. (1987):** First evidence of the post-suppression rebound effect using white bear experiments. 2. **Wegner & Erber (1992):** Found suppression effects worsened under cognitive load. 3. **Macrae et al. (1994):** Behavioural evidence of suppressed stereotypes rebounding in actions (e.g., seating distance). 4. **Shipherd & Beck (1999):** Suppressing traumatic thoughts increases PTSD symptoms. ### **Clinical Implications** - Thought suppression contributes to the development and maintenance of psychopathologies: - **PTSD:** Suppression leads to rumination and heightened symptoms. - **OCD:** Linked to greater intrusive thoughts and emotional distress. - **Depression:** Amplifies negative mood states and prevents recovery. ### **Conclusions** - Suppression often backfires, leading to the **Post-Suppression Rebound Effect (PSRE)**. - **Ironic Process Theory** is the dominant explanatory model. - **Practical Implications:** Strategies like distraction or reappraisal (rather than suppression) are more effective in managing intrusive thoughts. Bottom of Form *\ * *Lecture 2* **Perception-Behaviour Hypothesis: Revision Notes** --------------------------------------------------- ### **Key Aims** 1. Introduce the perception-behaviour hypothesis. 2. Explore evidence that environmental cues can unconsciously trigger behaviour. 3. Examine situations where environmental cues fail to dictate behaviour. 4. Understand the **boundary conditions** of the perception-behaviour hypothesis. ### **Core Concepts** 1. **Perception-Behaviour Interface:** - Everyday thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are often **automatic** and influenced by environmental features (Bargh, 1997). - Environmental cues (people, objects, settings, etc.) activate mental representations and action tendencies, often without conscious reflection. 2. **\"If X, then Y\" Conditionality:** - Environmental features (X) can trigger actions (Y) automatically (Anderson, 1992; Bargh, 1989). 3. **Principle of Ideomotor Action (James, 1890):** - Thinking about an action activates a tendency to perform it. 4. **Representing Action Tendencies (Berkowitz, 1984):** - Mental representations of actions contain semantic and behavioural information. - Activation of these representations can influence actions in specific directions. ### **Key Evidence for Automatic Behaviour** 1. **Shocking the Confederate (Carver et al., 1983):** - Aggression priming: Participants exposed to hostility-related words gave longer shocks to a confederate in a teacher-student paradigm. - Raises questions about automaticity since participants were instructed to shock. 2. **Rudeness vs Politeness Priming (Bargh, Chen, and Burrows, 1996):** - **Experiment Design:** - Phase 1: Participants complete a scrambled sentence task to prime rudeness, politeness, or control conditions. - Phase 2: Participants interrupt an experimenter\'s conversation. - **Findings:** - Rude prime: 67% interrupted. - Polite prime: 16% interrupted. - Demonstrates environmental cues shaping behaviour. 3. **Priming Stereotypes:** - **Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998):** - Participants primed with professors performed better on trivia tests (59.5%) than controls (49.9%). - Participants primed with secretaries performed worse (46.4%). - **Elderly Stereotype (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998):** - Participants primed with \"elderly\" concepts (e.g., \"bingo,\" \"Florida\") walked slower (8.26s) compared to controls (7.30s). 4. **Real-World Effects of Priming (Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, 2009):** - **Food Advertising:** - Children exposed to food ads consumed 45% more snack foods than controls. - Adults exposed to ads for both healthy and unhealthy foods ate more compared to those who saw non-food ads. ### **Boundary Conditions of Priming** 1. **Situational Cues:** - **Macrae & Johnston (1998):** Helpfulness primes increased helping when participants encountered normal pens (93.7% helped) but not leaky pens (6.2%). 2. **Processing Goals:** - **Macrae & Johnston (1998):** When participants were told they were running late, helpfulness primes were ineffective (helping rate dropped to 12.5%). 3. **Locus of Self-Control:** - **Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (2000):** - A mirror (self-focus condition) reduced the effects of politician priming on essay length, suggesting self-awareness moderates automatic behaviour. 4. **Contact with Stereotypes:** - **Dijksterhuis et al. (2000):** High contact with elderly individuals reduced memory for elderly-related words, indicating familiarity can mitigate priming effects. 5. **Assimilation vs Contrast Effects:** - **Dijksterhuis et al. (1998):** - Categories (e.g., \"elderly\") lead to **assimilation** effects (slower walking). - Exemplars (e.g., \"Queen Julianna, age 89\") lead to **contrast** effects (faster walking). ### **Critiques and Controversies** 1. **Social Priming Controversy:** - **Replication Issues:** - Shanks et al. (2013) failed to replicate intelligence-priming effects (e.g., \"professor\" vs \"soccer hooligan\" on trivia performance). - Bayesian analysis supported the null hypothesis (no priming effects). 2. **Responses to Critiques (Dijksterhuis, 2013):** - Shanks' replications were not exact. - Social priming remains a valid but context-dependent phenomenon. ### **Conclusions** - Strong evidence supports the **perception-behaviour hypothesis**: environmental cues can unconsciously influence behaviour. - However, priming effects are moderated by **situational factors**, **self-awareness**, and **goals.** - The replication crisis challenges the robustness of some findings, but contextual nuances may account for failures. *\ * *Lecture 3* **Attachment Theory and Social Cognition: Revision Notes** ---------------------------------------------------------- ### **Key Concepts** 1. **Attachment Behavioural System (Bowlby, 1969):** - Innate behavioural system designed by evolution to increase survival. - Generates proximity-seeking behaviours when triggered by threats or danger. - Behaviours include bids for interaction, emotional displays, and approach behaviours. - For adults, proximity seeking can occur symbolically (e.g., mental representations of attachment figures). 2. **Goals of the Attachment System:** - **Distal Goal:** Survival. - **Proximal Goal:** Psychological "felt security," achieved when attachment figures: - Are responsive. - Provide safe haven (emotional/physical support). - Act as a secure base (promoting exploration). - Once felt security is achieved, the attachment system deactivates, enabling focus on non-attachment behaviours. 3. **Benefits of Felt Security:** - Promotes **exploration**, **emotional regulation**, and **well-being**. - In secure individuals, this state can become trait-like. 4. **Basic Principles of Attachment Theory:** - Evolutionary, cognitive, and psychoanalytic framework. - Early interactions with caregivers shape **internal working models** (mental schemas) of relationships, guiding future behaviours. ### **Attachment Styles** 1. **Child Attachment Styles (Crittenden, 1997):** - **Secure:** Consistent positive caregiver responses. - **Avoidant:** Caregiver responds negatively, leading to deactivation of attachment behaviours. - **Anxious-Ambivalent:** Caregiver provides intermittent reinforcement, leading to hyperactivation of attachment behaviours. 2. **Adult Attachment Styles (Hazan & Shaver, 1987):** - Similar distribution as children: - **Secure (60%)** - **Anxious-Ambivalent (25%)** - **Avoidant (20%)** - Measured along two dimensions (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998): - **Anxiety about Abandonment.** - **Avoidance of Intimacy.** 3. **Dispositional vs. Relationship-Specific Attachment:** - While individuals have a dominant attachment style, their behaviours can vary across relationships. - Secure individuals have more secure relationships; insecure individuals show more variability. ### **Adult Attachment as Cognitive Schemas** 1. **Attachment Styles as Mental Models (Collins & Baldwin):** - Include affective (emotional), semantic (meaning-based), and action-based information (scripts for behaviour). - By adulthood, individuals may have multiple attachment schemas, with context dictating activation. 2. **Evidence of Schema-Based Effects:** - **Baldwin et al. (1993):** - Measured attachment styles using a lexical decision task (LDT) with sentence stems like "If I get close to others, they..." and tested responses. - Findings: - **Secure individuals:** Faster to complete positive attachment-related words. - **Avoidant individuals:** Faster to complete negative attachment-related words. - Demonstrates early processing effects of dispositional attachment styles. ### **Priming Attachment Styles** 1. **Typical Experimental Design:** - **Attachment Orientation Questionnaire.** - **Priming Task:** Write about a specific relationship or use relational schemas. - **Manipulation Check:** Test whether priming successfully activates the attachment style. 2. **Key Studies:** - **Baldwin et al. (1996):** - Primed participants with different attachment styles. - **Results:** - Primed-secures showed attraction to securely attached individuals. - Primed-avoidants preferred avoidant individuals. - Primed-anxious participants showed attraction to anxiously attached individuals. - Suggests priming overrides dispositional attachment styles temporarily. - **Rowe & Carnelley (2003):** - Participants primed with attachment styles and performed word recall tasks. - Found effects for positive attachment words but not negative words. - Suggests security priming improves positive self-perceptions. 3. **Implications of Security Priming:** - **Mikulincer & Shaver (2001):** - Security priming reduces negative reactions to outgroups. - **Mikulincer, Gillath, & Halevy (2001):** - Increases altruistic empathy. - **Carnelley & Rowe (2007):** - Repeated security priming improved self-views, relationship expectations, and attachment security over time. ### **Attachment Schema Hierarchy** 1. **Schema Organisation:** - Core attachment schemas reflect dominant styles but interact with relationship-specific schemas. - Attachment behaviours depend on contextual activation of these schemas. 2. **Long-Term Priming Effects:** - Security priming may simulate natural progression toward secure attachment in close relationships. - Interventions could reinforce secure mental models, with implications for therapy and personal development. ### **Key Conclusions** 1. **Attachment as an Innate Process:** - Attachment behaviours and schemas are foundational to human social development. 2. **Individual Differences:** - Derived from early experiences with caregivers, forming stable yet context-sensitive mental models. 3. **Multiple Styles:** - Adults possess multiple attachment schemas; context determines which is activated. 4. **Priming Effects:** - Attachment styles can be primed, influencing behaviour, emotions, and cognitions. - Repeated security priming fosters positive changes in self-perception and relationships. 5. **Interventions:** - Reinforcing secure attachment schemas can mitigate the negative effects of insecure attachment styles, with potential applications in therapy and social settings. *Lecture 4* **Romantic Love: Revision Notes** --------------------------------- ### **Key Concepts** 1. **Definition of Romantic Love (Fisher et al., 2010):** - Intense emotional and physiological state characterised by: - Focused attention on the partner. - Mood swings, heightened energy, and sympathetic nervous responses. - Emotional dependence, sexual desire, and obsessive thinking. - Goal-oriented behaviours to obtain and maintain the relationship. 2. **Is Being Lovestruck Like a Mental Illness?** - **Frank Tallis (2005):** - Symptoms include elevated mood, insomnia, loss of appetite, and stress. - Suggests similarities with **Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)**, supported by brain scan evidence of similar neural activation patterns. - **Freud (1915):** - Described romantic love as a \"sickness and craziness,\" involving illusions about the loved one. ### **Romantic Committed Relationships** 1. **Benefits of Romantic Relationships:** - Relationships improve happiness compared to being single. - Romantic partners often serve as **primary attachment figures**, offering security and reducing social isolation. 2. **Partner Verification (Accuracy):** - **Benefits of Accuracy:** - Avoids disappointment and poor decision-making. - Promotes intimacy by fostering mutual understanding (Rusbult). - **Evidence:** - **Kobak & Hazan (1991):** Accuracy supports relationship quality under specific conditions. - **Helgeson (1994):** Accuracy is helpful during relationship dissolution. ### **Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships** 1. **Definition (Murray & Holmes, 1997):** - Positive illusions occur when partners perceive each other as better than the partner's self-assessment or an objective observer's view. 2. **Key Studies:** - **Murray & Holmes (1997):** - Couples who idealise their partner report greater relationship satisfaction and stability. - **Penton-Voak et al. (2007):** - Satisfied couples selected a more attractive morphed version of their partner's face, while dissatisfied couples chose less attractive versions. 3. **Benefits of Positive Illusions:** - Increased **relationship satisfaction, love, and lust**. - Decreased ambivalence and enhanced conflict resolution. - Serve as a **self-fulfilling prophecy**, promoting pro-relationship behaviour during conflicts. 4. **Challenges to Positive Illusions:** - High rumination or relationship threats reduce the effectiveness of illusions (Jostmann et al., 2011). - Positive illusions about partner's physical attractiveness linked to possessive jealousy (Swami et al., 2012). ### **The Michelangelo Phenomenon** 1. **Definition (Drigotas et al., 1999):** - A partner's view of you influences personal growth toward your ideal self. - Involves: - **Perceptual Affirmation:** Partner sees you as closer to your ideal self. - **Behavioural Affirmation:** Partner's actions encourage alignment with your ideal self. 2. **Evidence:** - **Drigotas et al. (1999):** - Found that partner affirmation predicts movement toward the ideal self, which enhances relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. - **Drigotas (2002):** - Longitudinal study showed that affirmation predicts: - Life satisfaction, emotional well-being, and reduced loneliness. 3. **Limitations:** - Disaffirmation (partner undermining self-growth) is under-researched. - Mixed findings on whether affirmation and verification (accuracy) can coexist. ### **Blindness vs. Accuracy in Relationships** 1. **Blindness (Positive Illusions):** - Idealising a partner is beneficial for relationship maintenance but may distort reality. - **Drigotas et al. (1999):** - Found idealisation (affirmation) better predicts self-growth and relationship well-being than general positivity. 2. **Accuracy (Verification):** - While idealisation is important, accuracy is crucial under specific conditions: - **Breakups:** Helps partners make informed decisions. - **Long-Term Commitment:** Encourages realistic expectations. ### **Key Models** 1. **Michelangelo Phenomenon (Drigotas et al., 1999):** - Relationship dynamics involve: - Partner's affirmation (perceptual and behavioural). - Movement toward the ideal self. - Enhanced personal and relationship satisfaction. 2. **Positive Illusions Model (Murray & Holmes, 1997):** - Idealisation fosters pro-relationship behaviour and improves conflict resolution. 3. **Affirmation vs. Verification (Seidman & Burk, 2014):** - Both affirmation (idealisation) and verification (accuracy) contribute uniquely to relationship satisfaction. ### **Individual Differences in Romantic Relationships** 1. **Self-Regulation Styles (Kumashiro et al., 2007):** - **Locomotors:** Focus on achieving goals quickly, likely to affirm partners. - **Assessors:** Focus on perfection, may struggle to provide affirmation. 2. **Promotion Orientation (Righetti et al., 2010):** - Dreamers and aspirers are more likely to affirm their partners' ideal selves. ### **Conclusions** 1. **Benefits of Romantic Love:** - Promotes personal growth, emotional well-being, and social connectedness. - Both positive illusions and accuracy play roles, depending on context. 2. **Idealisation vs. Reality:** - Positive illusions are beneficial when focused on ideal self-growth. - Accuracy becomes critical in decision-making contexts (e.g., breakups). 3. **Future Research Needs:** - More studies on **disaffirmation** and its effects. - Exploration of motivational and situational predictors of positive illusions. Top of Form Bottom of Form **\ ** **Josie's Lectures** *Lecture 1* **Revision Notes: Social Cognition** **Definition** - Social cognition: The ability to recognise, interpret, and act upon socially relevant information (Adolphs, 2001).\ Includes: - **Face and emotional expression processing.** - **Empathy** and understanding others\' affective cues. - **Joint attention** and coordinating social behaviour. - **Theory of Mind (ToM):** Inferring mental states (thoughts, beliefs, desires). **Key Frameworks and Development** **Social Cognition Cascades** - Social cognition facets develop simultaneously and dynamically rather than in rigid stages. - Development is more complex than binary assumptions (e.g., not \"autistic people lack ToM\"). **Theory of Mind (ToM)** - **Definition:** Inferring mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions) in oneself and others.\ ToM involves: - Belief reasoning (understanding beliefs about the world). - Empathy (responding to others' emotions). - **Characteristics:** - Helps explain and predict behaviour. - Involves cognitive understanding of others\' perspectives. **Mental States** - **Unique Features:** - Unobservable and inferred. - Directed at the world (\"belief about X\"). - Enable self-awareness and prediction of others\' actions. **Research and Methods** **False Belief Tasks** - **Sally-Anne Task** (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985):\ Measures children's ability to infer another's belief (4-year-olds succeed; 3-year-olds often fail).\ Example: Where will Sally look for her doll after Anne moves it? - **Smarties Task** (Perner et al., 1987):\ Measures understanding of own and others' false beliefs.\ Finding: 3-year-olds struggle to attribute false beliefs but improve by age 4. **Theories of ToM Development** **Theory-Theories** - Children develop ToM through conceptual shifts, akin to scientific theorising. - **Wellman (1990):** - Transition from desire reasoning (what others want) to belief reasoning (what others think) around age 3-4. - **Perner (1991):** - Shift from understanding mental states as predicting behaviour to recognising their representational nature (meta-representation). **Desire and Belief Reasoning** - Early reasoning focuses on desires (e.g., food preferences). - Belief reasoning emerges later, requiring meta-representational insight. **Experimental Evidence** - **Desire Reasoning (Repacholi & Gopnik, 1997):** - 18-month-olds understand others\' preferences differ from their own (e.g., preferring broccoli over crackers). - **Appearance-Reality Distinction (Astington & Gopnik, 1988):** - By 3-4 years, children distinguish what something looks like from what it truly is. **Alternative Interpretations** - **Nativist Account (Leslie, 1987):** - Infants possess implicit ToM abilities but are limited by performance factors (e.g., attention control). - **Conceptual Account (Perner, 1991):** - Explicit ToM emerges with cognitive development and meta-representational skills. **Critical Perspectives** 1. **Cultural Influence:** - Social cognition is shaped by cultural norms. - Key challenges: - Is ToM universal or culturally specific? - Are multiple components of ToM measured adequately across cultures? 2. **Graded vs Singular Construct:** - False belief tasks alone cannot fully capture ToM. - Development of ToM occurs in \"micro-steps\" rather than sudden transitions. **Key Conclusions** 1. Social cognition development is dynamic, involving cascading processes. 2. ToM is better understood as a graded construct rather than a singular ability. 3. Early mental state understanding (desires, intentions, beliefs) is embodied in young children and develops with experience. 4. Cross-cultural perspectives highlight the variability in ToM expression and measurement. *\ * *Lecture 2* **Revision Notes: Psychological Reasoning in Infancy** **Key Theories and Concepts** - **Intentionality** - **Philosophy:** Mental state directed towards an object or state. - **Psychology:** Mental states underpin actions directed towards goals. - Requires infants to: - Recognise agents (self/others). - Detect goal states and distinguish accidental from intentional acts. - **Agency** - Sense of self as capable of directing actions. - Developed through: - **Contingent learning** (Rovee-Collier): Learning cause-effect relations. - **Imitation** (Meltzoff): Mapping others\' actions onto self. **Key Studies on Agency and Intentionality** 1. **Rovee-Collier (Contingent Learning):** - Infants learn through actions producing predictable outcomes (e.g., kicking to move a mobile). 2. **Meltzoff (Imitation):** - **1998:** 14-month-olds selectively imitate rational, intentional actions. - **Cross-modality mapping:** Links infants\' desires to their actions, fostering agency. 3. **Gergely et al. (2002):** - Infants imitate unusual actions (e.g., using the head to turn on a light) when rational (e.g., hands are occupied). **Understanding Intentionality** - **Gaze Following (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2005):** - 10-11 months: Infants follow gaze only when eyes are open. - Correlates with later language development. - **Communicative Intent (12 Months):** - Seen in: - Purposeful imitation. - Proto-declarative pointing. - Gaze-following. **Psychological Reasoning in Infants** 1. **Principles of Reasoning** - **Efficiency:** Actions require minimal effort. - **Consistency:** Actions align with mental states. 2. **Gergely & Csibra (1995, 2003):** - Infants (6-9 months) detect rational vs irrational actions, even with non-human agents. 3. **Amanda Woodward (2012):** - 11-12-month-olds infer goals from hand movements. 4. **Perspective-Taking (Luo & Baillargeon, 2009):** - Infants respond differently based on what the actor can or cannot see. **Intentionality vs Desire** - **Schult (1992):** - By age 4, children differentiate intentional actions from desires (e.g., unintended outcomes fulfilling a wish). **Intentionality vs Accidental Actions** - **Poulin-DuBois (2005):** - 14-18 months: Infants distinguish intentional actions (marked by pleased expressions) from accidental ones (\"whoops\"). **Conclusions** 1. **By 12 Months:** - Infants demonstrate communicative intent, including imitation and goal inference. 2. **Younger Infants (6-9 Months):** - Show early psychological reasoning about goals but are limited in richer mentalistic interpretations. 3. **Open Questions:** - Are mentalising abilities innate or developed through interaction and reasoning? **Key Studies Summary Table** **Study** **Age Group** **Key Finding** ----------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- **Rovee-Collier** 2-6 months Infants learn causal relations, developing agency. **Meltzoff (1998)** 14 months Infants selectively imitate rational, intentional actions. **Gergely (2002)** 6-9 months Infants distinguish rational vs irrational actions. **Woodward (2003)** 7-12 months Infants infer goals from gaze and hand movements. **Brooks & Meltzoff** 10-11 months Gaze-following develops, correlates with later language. **Poulin-DuBois** 14-18 months Infants distinguish intentional vs accidental actions. **Luo & Baillargeon** 6-12 months Infants consider what others can see when interpreting behaviour. *\ * *Lecture 3* **Revision Notes: Social Brain, Prefrontal Cortex, and Self-Control** **Social Brain Network** **Development** - **Early reasoning:** Social goals, intentions, and emotions align with **Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS)** for motion/action perception. - **Later reasoning:** Belief and perspective-taking linked to: - **Temporo-Parietal Junction (TPJ):** Theory of mind. - **Medial Prefrontal Cortex (PFC):** Communicative intent. **Adult Social Brain Insights** - Neural processes like **facial adaptation** involve **top-down modulation by belief** (Teufel et al., 2009). - Studies indicate **mental state processing** influences perception and social inference. **Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) Development** **Key Features** - **Hypo-frontality:** Reduced glucose utilisation and blood flow early in life. - **Hetero-chronicity:** Asynchronous development; PFC is the last to mature. - White matter tracts, like **superior longitudinal fasciculus**, are still immature during adolescence. **PFC and Cognitive Control** - Delayed development provides opportunities for learning through error. - **PFC lesions:** Cause perseverative errors and impair self-regulation. **Self-Control** **Definition** - The ability to regulate emotions, thoughts, and behaviours towards a goal (Diamond, 2013). - **Cool self-control:** Associated with cognitive processes (e.g., inhibition). - **Hot self-control:** Linked to emotional regulation and impulsivity. **Marshmallow Task (Mischel et al., 1972)** - Children who delay gratification (wait for a better reward) exhibit: - Stronger **social and academic skills**. - Long-term benefits in **goal-directed behaviour**. **Training Self-Control** - **Bharatharaj et al. (2023):** Robots like Nao can improve waiting times and self-regulation in young children. **Inhibitory Control** **Definition** - The ability to suppress dominant responses to irrelevant stimuli while pursuing goals. - **Tasks measuring inhibition:** Go/NoGo, Stroop, Simon, Stop-signal. **Developmental Findings** - Inhibitory control develops alongside working memory but follows distinct trajectories. - **Eigsti (2006):** Delay gratification at age 4 predicts better performance on inhibition tasks at 18 years. **Social Brain and Perspective-Taking** **Director Task (Dumontheil, 2010)** - Requires participants to take another's perspective. - Adolescents show difficulty switching perspectives due to developing PFC. **Social Brain Regions** - **Dorso-medial PFC:** Mentalizing tasks. - **Inferior Frontal Gyrus:** Perspective switching. - **Middle Temporal Gyrus:** Social scripts. **Conclusion** 1. **Social Brain:** Modulated by top-down influences; continues developing post-puberty. 2. **Prefrontal Cortex:** Late maturing, supports self-control and cognitive flexibility. 3. **Self-Control:** Predicts long-term outcomes; training can enhance it. 4. **Inhibition:** A distinct cognitive construct tied to PFC, crucial for goal-directed behaviour. *\ * *Lecture 4* ### **Revision Notes: Social Cognition, Language, and Theory of Mind (ToM)** ### **Key Learning Objectives** 1. Understand the relationship between mentalizing and cognitive control. 2. Differentiate between **Emergence** and **Expression** accounts of ToM development. 3. Recognise the role of **language** in ToM and cognitive development. 4. Discuss how narrative styles and culture influence social cognition and developmental outcomes. 5. Examine the evolutionary and cultural perspectives on ToM. ### **Key Concepts and Evidence** #### **1. Emergence Account of ToM-Cognitive Control Relations** - **Core Idea:** Meta-representational ability is critical for ToM, driving cognitive control development. - **Key Evidence:** - **Carlson & Moses (2001):** Found high correlation between cognitive control and ToM (r = 0.66). - **Perner et al. (2012):** False Belief (FB) tasks demand more than ToM---require inhibitory control (e.g., suppressing reality-based thinking). #### **2. Expression Account of ToM-Cognitive Control Relations** - **Core Idea:** Implicit ToM exists early but requires cognitive control (e.g., inhibition, working memory) for explicit expression. - **Key Evidence:** - **Baillargeon & He (2010):** Implicit ToM observed in **low-executive-function-demand tasks** (e.g., violation-of-expectancy tasks). - **Marcovitz (2015):** Early inhibitory control predicts later ToM ability. - **Moses & Tahiroglu (2010):** Development of cognitive control facilitates the expression of ToM. #### **3. Social Cognition and Language** - **Language as a Third Variable:** - Facilitates the **emergence** (representing mental states) and **expression** (manipulating mental states) of ToM. - Early vocabulary predicts executive function development (Bruce et al., 2023). - **Mental State Talk (EMST):** - **Judy Dunn (1991):** Family conversations using emotional state talk predict ToM outcomes. - **Ruffman et al. (2001):** Maternal EMST influences ToM beyond early ToM abilities, showing long-term benefits. - **Mind-Mindedness:** Parents attuned to children's mental states (Meins et al., 2013) support: - Pretend play. - Executive functions. - Attachment security. #### **4. Narrative and Culture** - **Parent-Child Discourse:** - Elaborative styles enhance autobiographical memory and ToM. - Fivush et al. (2003): Parent elaboration fosters **organised, coherent self-concept**. - **Cultural Differences:** - **Wang & Leichtman (2000):** - American parents emphasise **autonomy**. - Chinese parents focus on **social norms** and moral standards. - **Cultural Universalism:** - Mental state talk predicts ToM across cultures (e.g., Meingold & Hiu-MingChan, 2020). #### **5. Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Cognition** - **Tomasello\'s Evolutionary Account:** - **Shared Coordination:** Infants track and triangulate mental states (e.g., joint attention). - **Co-operative Communication:** Shared intentions facilitate communication beyond basic needs. - **Language:** Enables representation and understanding of competing perspectives. #### **6. Broader Implications of Social Cognition** - **Language as a Third Variable:** Links cognitive development, cultural adaptation, and social representation. - **Narrative Memory Construction:** - Parent elaboration and repetition shape culture-dependent autobiographical memories. ### **Critical Considerations** 1. **Cultural Diversity:** - Misrepresentation in binary constructs like individualism vs collectivism. - Emic (insider) perspectives enhance understanding. 2. **Social Constructivism:** - Social cognition emerges from shared **language** and **discourse**. 3. **Limits of Memory and Language:** - Early memory decays, but language enhances durability. ### **Key Takeaways** - **Language, culture, and narrative styles** are central to social cognition. - **EMST** and elaborative parent-child discourse foster ToM, academic skills, and broader cognitive development. - Cultural variation enriches the understanding of ToM as a **socially constructed process**. JOSIE SUMMARY **Lecture 1: Social Cognition** - **Definition**: Recognising, interpreting, and acting on socially relevant information (Adolphs, 2001). Includes: - **Theory of Mind (ToM)**: Inferring mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions). - **Empathy**: Understanding affective cues. - **Joint Attention**: Coordinating behaviour with others. - **Key Models**: - **Social Cognition Cascades**: Develop dynamically, not in rigid stages. - **Theory-Theories**: Conceptual shifts drive ToM development (Wellman, 1990; Perner, 1991). - **Experimental Evidence**: - **Sally-Anne Task (Baron-Cohen, 1985)**: False belief reasoning develops by age 4. - **Desire Reasoning (Repacholi & Gopnik, 1997)**: 18-month-olds recognise differing preferences. - **Appearance-Reality Distinction (Astington & Gopnik, 1988)**: Emerges around age 3--4. - **Critical Perspectives**: - Cultural influence on ToM development. - ToM as a graded construct with \"micro-steps\" in development. **Lecture 2: Psychological Reasoning in Infancy** - **Intentionality**: - Actions reflect mental states/goals (Gergely & Csibra, 1995). - **Imitation Studies**: - Meltzoff (1998): Infants imitate rational, intentional actions. - Gergely et al. (2002): Rational imitation of unusual actions (e.g., using a head to turn on a light). - **Psychological Reasoning**: - **Principles of Efficiency and Consistency**: Infants (6--9 months) expect minimal-effort, rational actions. - **Perspective-Taking**: Luo & Baillargeon (2009): Infants consider others\' perspectives. - **Experimental Evidence**: - **Gaze Following**: Brooks & Meltzoff (2005): 10--11-month-olds follow gaze when eyes are open. - **Intentionality vs. Accidental Actions**: Poulin-DuBois (2005): 14--18 months distinguish intentional from accidental behaviours. **Lecture 3: Social Brain, Prefrontal Cortex, and Self-Control** - **Social Brain Development**: - **Key Regions**: - **STS**: Motion/action perception. - **TPJ**: Perspective-taking and ToM. - **Medial PFC**: Communicative intent and reasoning. - **Findings**: Neural processes influence social inferences (Teufel et al., 2009). - **Prefrontal Cortex**: - **Development**: - Matures last (hetero-chronicity). - Associated with self-regulation and inhibition. - **Self-Control**: - **Marshmallow Task (Mischel et al., 1972)**: Delay gratification predicts long-term social/academic outcomes. - **Inhibitory Control**: - Measures: Go/NoGo, Stroop tasks. - Eigsti (2006): Early self-control predicts better outcomes in adulthood. - **Social Perspective-Taking**: - **Director Task (Dumontheil, 2010)**: Adolescents struggle with perspective-switching due to late PFC development. **Lecture 4: Social Cognition, Language, and ToM** - **Key Accounts**: - **Emergence Account**: ToM drives cognitive control (Carlson & Moses, 2001; Perner et al., 2012). - **Expression Account**: Implicit ToM exists early but requires executive functions for explicit tasks (Baillargeon & He, 2010). - **Role of Language**: - **Mental State Talk (EMST)**: Family discussions about emotions foster ToM (Dunn, 1991). - **Mind-Mindedness (Meins et al., 2013)**: Parents attuned to children's mental states boost cognitive and social outcomes. - **Cultural and Evolutionary Perspectives**: - **Cultural Variation**: - American: Autonomy-focused. - Chinese: Social norms-focused (Wang & Leichtman, 2000). - **Evolutionary Models (Tomasello)**: - **Shared Coordination**: Infants triangulate mental states. - **Language**: Enables representation of competing perspectives. **Key Takeaways Across Lectures** 1. Social cognition is dynamic and shaped by cultural, biological, and linguistic factors. 2. ToM development involves both conceptual shifts and gradual cognitive enhancements. 3. Self-control and executive functions predict long-term social, academic, and ToM success. 4. Language, especially mental state talk, bridges cognitive and social development. **\ ** **Bruna's Lectures** *Lecture 1* **Cognitive Intelligence: Revision Notes** ------------------------------------------ ### **Definition and Function** 1. **Definition:** - Cognitive intelligence involves general cognitive ability to solve problems, learn from experience, and adapt to the environment (Sternberg, 2019; Coyle, 2021). 2. **Evolutionary Function:** - Intelligence evolved to address ecological problems, survive, and reproduce within complex social groups (Gosling, 2015). ### **Historical and Theoretical Frameworks** 1. **First Modern Intelligence Test:** - **Binet-Simon Scale (1905):** Developed to identify children needing special education. - Revised as the **Stanford-Binet Test (1916)** and has since undergone multiple updates. 2. **Spearman's Two-Factor Theory (1904):** - **General Intelligence (g):** Universal cognitive ability underlying all tasks. - **Specific Factors (s):** Abilities unique to specific tasks (e.g., math, language). 3. **CHC Model of Cognitive Abilities:** - Based on work by **Cattell, Horn, and Carroll:** - **Fluid Intelligence (Gf):** Problem-solving and reasoning in novel situations. - **Crystallised Intelligence (Gc):** Knowledge-based abilities shaped by education and experience. - Recognises **80+ narrow abilities** and integrates broader factors with \"g\" at the apex. 4. **Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (1983):** - Proposes eight distinct types of intelligence (e.g., linguistic, spatial, interpersonal). - Widely criticised due to limited empirical evidence. 5. **Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence (1984, 2019):** - Intelligence includes **analytical, creative, and practical abilities** to achieve personal goals in a sociocultural context. - Expanded in 2019 to include **adaptive intelligence**, highlighting the role of culture in shaping problem-solving abilities. ### **Cultural Perspectives on Intelligence** 1. **Cultural Variability:** - Intelligence is viewed differently across cultures: - **North America:** Focus on cognitive abilities (e.g., IQ). - **China:** Emphasises cognitive abilities, diligence, and social skills. - **Africa:** Includes social skills fostering harmony and practical problem-solving. - Practical skills are more valued in rural settings than academic abilities (Grigorenko et al., 2004). 2. **Implications:** - Intelligence theories and measurements must consider cultural context to remain relevant and inclusive. ### **Measuring Cognitive Intelligence** 1. **Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB5):** - Measures five factors: Fluid reasoning (Gf), crystallised knowledge (Gc), quantitative reasoning (Gq), visual-spatial processing (Gv), and working memory (Gsm). 2. **Wechsler Scales:** - **WISC (1949):** For children aged 6--16. - **WAIS (1955):** For adults aged 16--89. - Continuously revised, widely used in clinical, educational, and forensic contexts. 3. **Raven's Progressive Matrices (SPM):** - Measures **non-verbal intelligence** by testing eductive reasoning (problem-solving from incomplete information). **Emotional Intelligence (EI): Revision Notes** ----------------------------------------------- ### **Definition and Evolution** 1. **Definition:** - EI involves the ability to monitor and regulate one's emotions and understand others' emotions, guiding thought and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). 2. **Historical Context:** - **Thorndike (1920):** Introduced \"social intelligence.\" - **Gardner (1983):** Proposed interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. - **Salovey & Mayer (1990):** Formalised the concept of EI. ### **Models of Emotional Intelligence** 1. **Ability Model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990):** - Emphasises the functional role of emotions in: - Recognising and understanding emotions. - Using emotions to guide thought and actions. 2. **Mixed Models:** - **Bar-On (1997):** EI comprises non-cognitive abilities, such as stress management and adaptability. - **Goleman (1995):** Focuses on personal characteristics like self-awareness, motivation, and empathy. 3. **Trait Model (Petrides & Furnham, 2001):** - EI is viewed as a personality trait, reflecting individual differences in self-perceptions of emotional abilities. ### **Measuring Emotional Intelligence** 1. **Ability EI Instruments:** - **MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test):** - Measures EI through emotion-based problem-solving tasks. 2. **Mixed EI Instruments:** - **EQ-i (Emotional Quotient Inventory):** - Measures EI as a combination of emotional and social skills. 3. **Trait EI Instruments:** - **TEIQue (Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire):** - Assesses self-perceived emotional capabilities. ### **Debates on Emotional Intelligence** 1. **Validity Concerns (Matthews et al., 2004):** - Conceptualisation and definition vary across models. - Overlaps with other psychological constructs (e.g., personality). 2. **Strengths of EI:** - Strong predictor of emotional well-being. - Complements cognitive intelligence in predicting life success. ### **Comparing Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence** 1. **Key Differences:** - **Cognitive Intelligence (IQ):** - Focuses on analytical and problem-solving skills. - Strong predictor of academic and career performance. - **Emotional Intelligence (EQ):** - Focuses on interpersonal and emotional regulation abilities. - Strong predictor of emotional well-being and relationship success. 2. **Integrated View:** - Both IQ and EQ contribute uniquely to personal and professional outcomes, and neither should be considered in isolation. ### **Conclusions** 1. **Cognitive Intelligence:** - Remains central to understanding academic and career success. - Modern theories (e.g., CHC model) provide nuanced perspectives, incorporating cultural and contextual factors. 2. **Emotional Intelligence:** - Enhances our understanding of social and emotional functioning. - Validity debates highlight the need for refined definitions and measurements. 3. **Future Directions:** - Continued integration of cognitive and emotional intelligence in research. - Development of culturally sensitive intelligence assessments. *\ * *Lecture 2* **Attitudes and Behaviour: Revision Notes** **Key Definitions and Models** 1. **Definition of Attitudes (Haddock & Maio, 2019):** - Attitudes are global evaluations of objects based on three components: - **Affective responses:** Emotional reactions. - **Behavioural information:** Past and present behaviours. - **Cognitive information:** Beliefs and thoughts. 2. **Three-Component Model of Attitudes (Breckler, 1984):** - Investigated attitudes toward snakes using: - Cognition (e.g., \"Are snakes kind or cruel?\"). - Affect (e.g., \"Do snakes make you feel anxious or happy?\"). - Behaviour (e.g., \"Do you like handling snakes?\"). - Moderate correlations show these components are independent. 3. **Individual Differences in Components:** - The importance of components varies: - **Affective-Cognitive Ambivalence (Lavine et al., 1998):** - Mixed positive and negative beliefs/feelings influence political attitudes. - Cultural differences in attitude formation (Perry et al., 2020): - Cognitive beliefs had stronger effects on attitudes toward predators in Kenya and Zimbabwe. 4. **Function of Attitudes:** - **Smith et al. (1956):** Attitudes serve: - Object-Appraisal (evaluating objects). - Social-Adjustment (guiding social behaviour). - Externalisation (protecting the self). - **Katz (1960):** Expanded with: - **Ego-Defensive Function:** Protecting self-esteem. - **Value-Expressive Function:** Reflecting core beliefs and values. 5. **Formation of Attitudes (Haddock & Maio, 2004):** - Formed to satisfy: - **Need for Affect:** Preference for emotional stimulation. - **Need for Cognition:** Preference for effortful thinking. - Evidence (van Giesen et al., 2015): - Familiar objects → high need for cognition (reliance on thoughts). - Unfamiliar objects → high need for affect (reliance on feelings). **Measuring Attitudes** 1. **Self-Report Measures:** - Example: Likert scales to rate attitudes numerically. - Strengths: - Economical, easy to administer, reliable. - Limitations: - Subject to **demand characteristics** and **impression management**. 2. **Implicit Measures:** - **Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald et al., 1998):** - Assesses automatic associations between objects and evaluative attributes. - Example: Gender-Career IAT measures implicit biases in pairing concepts like \"men\" and \"career.\" **Attitudes and Behaviour** 1. **Early Studies (LaPiere, 1934):** - Found discrepancies between expressed attitudes and behaviour toward a Chinese couple at establishments. 2. **Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB, Ajzen, 1991):** - Predicts behaviour using: - **Attitudes toward the behaviour.** - **Subjective norms:** Social pressures. - **Perceived behavioural control:** Confidence in one's ability to act. **Attitude Change** 1. **Persuasion:** - Attitude change occurs through information processing in response to messages. 2. **Dual-Processing Models:** - **Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM, Petty & Cacioppo, 1986):** - Central Route (effortful): Focus on message quality. - Peripheral Route (effortless): Focus on superficial cues (e.g., attractiveness of the speaker). - **Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM, Chaiken et al., 1993):** - Heuristic processing: Relies on mental shortcuts. - Systematic processing: Deliberative, effortful. 3. **Low Cognitive Effort (Classical Conditioning):** - **Razran (1940):** - Participants were more likely to agree with slogans paired with pleasant stimuli (e.g., free lunch) despite not recalling the pairing. 4. **High Cognitive Effort (Yale Model, Hovland et al., 1953):** - Persuasion depends on: - Message source, recipient, content, and delivery channel. - Internal processes: **Attention → Comprehension → Rehearsal → Yielding.** **Resistance to Attitude Change** 1. **ABC Model (McGuire, 1964):** - Affective resistance: \"I don't like it.\" - Behavioural resistance: \"I won't do it.\" - Cognitive resistance: \"I don't believe it.\" 2. **Strategies for Resistance (Fransen et al., 2015):** - High attitude certainty strengthens resistance. - Strong attacks increase resistance more than weak attacks. 3. **Critical Consideration:** - Resistance can be beneficial (e.g., resisting unhealthy behaviours). - Persuasion efforts should sometimes focus on reducing resistance (e.g., promoting healthy habits). **Essay-Style Questions** 1. **Theoretical Frameworks:** - Compare the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) in explaining how attitudes are formed and changed. Provide examples. 2. **Cultural Variability:** - Discuss how cultural and individual differences impact the relative importance of affective, behavioural, and cognitive components of attitudes. 3. **Attitudes and Behaviour:** - Critically evaluate the extent to which attitudes predict behaviour, using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a framework. 4. **Implicit vs. Explicit Measures:** - Examine the strengths and limitations of self-report and implicit measures in assessing attitudes. In what contexts might one method be preferable over the other? 5. **Resistance to Persuasion:** - \"Resistance to persuasion is both a challenge and an opportunity.\" Discuss this statement, using examples from health-related messaging. *\ * *Lecture 3* **Positive Psychology: Revision Notes** **Key Definitions and Origins** 1. **Definition of Positive Psychology (PP):** - The scientific study of factors that enable individuals and communities to thrive by focusing on strengths, virtues, and positive experiences (International Positive Psychology Association). 2. **Origins:** - Psychology's focus historically: - Pre-WWII: Cure mental illness, foster productivity, and nurture talent. - Post-WWII: Focused heavily on repairing damage (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). - Influences: - **William James:** Called for studying optimal human functioning. - **Kurt Goldstein:** Emphasised holistic responses and self-actualisation. - **Marie Jahoda (1958):** Defined mental health positively (e.g., autonomy, mastery). - **Carl Rogers (1963):** Introduced \"fully functioning person\" as a growth-oriented individual. - **Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943, 1968):** Highlighted human motivation as a progression from basic needs to self-actualisation. **Core Concepts in Positive Psychology** 1. **Three Pillars of PP:** - **Positive Subjective Experiences:** Focus on happiness and well-being. - **Positive Individual Traits:** Self-efficacy, gratitude, and other personal strengths. - **Positive Institutions:** Social systems fostering well-being. 2. **Hedonic vs Eudaimonic Well-Being:** - **Hedonic (Diener & Lucas, 1999):** Well-being as pleasure, including: - Life satisfaction. - Positive mood and absence of negative mood. - **Eudaimonic (Ryff's Six-Factor Model, 1995):** Well-being as human flourishing, including: - Self-acceptance, positive relationships, purpose in life, autonomy, personal growth, environmental mastery. 3. **Measurement:** - Hedonic: Subjective Well-Being Scale, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). - Eudaimonic: Ryff's Psychological Well-Being (PWB) Scale (42-item). **Positive Traits** 1. **Self-Efficacy:** - Defined as beliefs in one's abilities to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997). - Development influenced by: - Performance experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, physiological states. - Associated outcomes: - Predicts academic performance, mental health, resilience (Chen et al., 2020). 2. **Gratitude:** - Defined as recognising and responding with grateful emotion to others' benevolence (McCullough et al., 2002). - Types: - **Benefit-triggered:** Gratitude for specific actions. - **Generalised:** Broad appreciation for life's positives. - Measurement: - Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6). **Positive Institutions and Relationships** 1. **Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985):** - Three core needs essential for well-being: - Competence. - Autonomy. - Belongingness. - Research highlights stronger well-being associations in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Brazil; Londero-Santos et al., 2021). 2. **Relationship Quality:** - Factors predicting relationship satisfaction (Joel et al., 2020): - Quality of interactions. - Predictable changes over time. **Cultural Context of Positive Psychology** 1. **Individualism vs Collectivism:** - Individualism: Emphasises autonomy (e.g., USA, UK). - Collectivism: Values interdependence and group goals (e.g., China, Brazil). - **Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions:** Illustrates cross-cultural differences in societal priorities. 2. **Cultural Variations in Key Concepts:** - **Gratitude:** Tacit acknowledgment (reciprocal behaviour) more common in collectivistic cultures. - **Well-Being:** Less emphasis on individual happiness in collectivistic societies (Joshanloo & Weijers, 2014). 3. **Neuroscience Perspective (Zhu et al.):** - Found cultural differences in self-representation using fMRI: - Western cultures: Stronger distinction between self and others. - Collectivistic cultures: More overlap in neural activation. **Critiques of Positive Psychology** 1. **Key Criticisms (van Zyl et al., 2023):** - Poor theorising and conceptual clarity. - Limited methodological robustness and replicability. - Accused of being neoliberal and overly individualistic. 2. **Responses to Critiques:** - Increased emphasis on cultural sensitivity. - Efforts to address replication concerns with stricter methodologies. - Inclusion of indigenous perspectives to enrich global relevance. **Future Directions for Positive Psychology** 1. **Cultural Sensitivity:** - Incorporate local traditions, values, and perspectives in research. - Expand cross-cultural studies to ensure global applicability. 2. **Practical Applications:** - Develop interventions that translate findings into real-world contexts. - Encourage adherence to ethical guidelines and open science practices. **Essay-Style Questions** 1. **Theoretical Development:** - Discuss the historical foundations of Positive Psychology and evaluate their relevance to contemporary research. 2. **Well-Being Dimensions:** - Compare and contrast hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, highlighting cultural implications. 3. **Cultural Influences:** - To what extent do cultural values (e.g., individualism vs collectivism) influence the expression of gratitude and well-being? 4. **Critiques of PP:** - Critically assess the limitations of Positive Psychology, focusing on replication and cultural biases. How might these issues be addressed? 5. **Self-Efficacy and Gratitude:** - Explore the roles of self-efficacy and gratitude in promoting resilience and academic performance, using empirical evidence. *Lecture 4* **Health and Personality: Revision Notes** **Key Definitions and Models** 1. **Definition of Health:** - **Biomedical Model:** - Health is the absence of negative biological circumstances. - Illness is caused by physical factors; body and mind are considered separate. - **Biopsychosocial Model (Bashmi et al., 2023):** - Considers psychological and social aspects alongside biological. - Accounts for cultural beliefs, e.g., reliance on spiritual leaders for healing. - **World Health Organisation (WHO):** - Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. - Criticised for being vague and unrealistic but highlights inclusivity. **Theoretical Models of Personality and Health** 1. **Historical Perspective: Galen's Theory of Humours:** - Links bodily humours (blood, yellow bile, black bile, phlegm) to personality types. - Example: Blood (sanguine), black bile (melancholic). 2. **Big Five Model of Personality:** - Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism. - Serves as a framework to explore personality-health links. 3. **Four Mechanisms Linking Personality to Health (Maltby et al., 2023):** - **Model 1:** Personality → Biological Processes → Illness. - Example: Type A personality (hostility/aggression) linked to coronary heart disease (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959). - **Model 2:** Shared Biological Causes → Personality and Illness. - Correlational links, though specific examples are sparse. - **Model 3:** Personality → Behaviours → Illness. - Example: Sensation-seeking traits linked to smoking → lung disease. - **Model 4:** Illness → Changes in Personality. - Example: Chronic illness (e.g., arthritis) reduces social opportunities, leading to lower extraversion and increased neuroticism. 4. **Stress-Based Models:** - **General Adaptation Syndrome (Seyle, 1956):** - Stress as a non-specific response to any demand (positive or negative). - **Transactional Model of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984):** - Emphasises individual appraisal of stressors, linking personality (e.g., neuroticism, low self-efficacy) to stress perception. 5. **Dynamic Lifespan Models:** - **Critical Period Models:** Risk exposure in developmental periods has long-term effects. - **Accumulation Models:** Risk factors build over time. - Highlights interaction and evolution of personality and health over the lifespan. **Empirical Evidence on Personality and Health** 1. **Conscientiousness:** - Associated with better health outcomes and longevity (Hampson et al., 2015). - Mechanisms: - Health-promoting behaviours. - Stable careers and higher income. - Implication: - Promoting conscientiousness in children can have lifelong benefits. 2. **Neuroticism:** - Complex and inconsistent findings. - Negative: Linked to worse mental health and cognitive decline. - Positive: Some studies suggest facets like worry and vulnerability are linked to lower mortality risk (Gale et al., 2017). - Interactions with other traits (e.g., conscientiousness) are crucial. 3. **Meta-Analytic Evidence (Strickhouser et al., 2017):** - Mental Health: - Neuroticism (-), Conscientiousness (+), Agreeableness (+). - Physical Health: - Weaker but still significant links. - Healthy Behaviours: - Stronger ties to conscientiousness and agreeableness. **Stress and Health** 1. **Role of Personality in Stress Appraisal:** - Example: - Neurotic individuals → Perceive higher stress due to low self-efficacy. - Coping mechanisms vary by trait: - Conscientious individuals → Active coping. - Neurotic individuals → Avoidant or maladaptive strategies. 2. **Impact of Stress on Health:** - Chronic stress → Psychological stress and reduced subjective well-being. - Neuroticism exacerbates this process over time. **Personality and Health Behaviours** 1. **Health-Promoting Behaviours:** - Conscientiousness predicts adherence to health guidelines (e.g., diet, exercise). 2. **Risky Behaviours:** - Sensation-seeking (low conscientiousness) associated with smoking, alcohol use, and other risky activities. **Lifespan Perspective on Personality and Health** 1. **Long-Term Effects:** - Personality traits (e.g., neuroticism) contribute to cumulative stress and poor health outcomes. - Interaction between traits and health behaviours amplifies effects over time. 2. **Dynamic and Reciprocal Relationships:** - Personality and health influence each other in a cyclical manner (e.g., illness leads to personality changes and vice versa). **Comparative Influence of Traits** 1. **Conscientiousness:** - Strong predictor of longevity and health behaviours. 2. **Neuroticism:** - Mixed results but consistently linked to mental health. 3. **Agreeableness:** - Associated with mental health and positive social interactions. **Summary** 1. Personality influences health through biological, behavioural, and reciprocal pathways. 2. Conscientiousness is consistently linked to positive health outcomes. 3. Neuroticism shows mixed associations but often exacerbates stress. 4. Lifespan approaches reveal dynamic interactions between personality and health. **Essay-Style Questions** 1. **Models of Health:** - Compare the biomedical and biopsychosocial models in addressing cultural and psychological aspects of health. 2. **Stress and Personality:** - Discuss how personality traits influence stress appraisal and coping mechanisms, using evidence from lifespan models. 3. **Trait-Specific Mechanisms:** - Evaluate the role of conscientiousness and neuroticism in predicting mental and physical health outcomes. 4. **Dynamic Models:** - Explore the application of dynamic lifespan models in understanding the relationship between personality and health. 5. **Neuroticism Debate:** - Critically assess the inconsistent findings regarding neuroticism's impact on health. How do interactions with other traits contribute? ### BRUNA SUMMARY Final Summary: Key Takeaways from the Four Lectures **1. Intelligence** - **Definitions:** - **Cognitive Intelligence:** Problem-solving, learning from experience, and adapting to the environment (Sternberg, 2019). - **Emotional Intelligence (EI):** Ability to monitor and manage emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). - **Major Theories:** - **Spearman's Two-Factor Theory (1904):** General intelligence (g) + specific abilities (s). - **CHC Model:** Fluid intelligence (novel problem-solving) vs crystallised intelligence (knowledge-based). - **Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983):** Eight types of intelligence (e.g., linguistic, spatial). - **Triarchic Theory (Sternberg, 1984):** Analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. - **Measurement:** - **Cognitive:** Stanford-Binet, Wechsler Scales, Raven's Progressive Matrices. - **EI:** MSCEIT (ability model), EQ-i (mixed model). - **Key Findings:** - Cognitive intelligence predicts academic and career success. - EI predicts emotional well-being and social functioning. **2. Attitudes and Behaviour** - **Definition:** Attitudes are global evaluations based on affective, cognitive, and behavioural components (Haddock & Maio, 2019). - **Models and Theories:** - **Three-Component Model (Breckler, 1984):** Cognition, affect, behaviour. - **Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991):** Intentions are influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control. - **Persuasion Models:** - **Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986):** Central (effortful) vs peripheral (effortless) routes. - **Heuristic-Systematic Model (Chaiken, 1993):** Heuristic (shortcuts) vs systematic processing. - **Key Insights:** - Attitudes predict behaviour, but factors like norms and control also play a role. - Resistance to persuasion depends on attitude strength and confidence. **3. Positive Psychology** - **Definition:** The scientific study of strengths and factors that enable individuals and communities to thrive. - **Core Concepts:** - **Well-Being:** - **Hedonic (Diener, 1999):** Focuses on happiness and life satisfaction. - **Eudaimonic (Ryff, 1995):** Emphasises human flourishing (e.g., purpose, personal growth). - **Positive Traits:** - **Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1997):** Belief in one's ability to achieve goals. - **Gratitude:** Recognition of others' benevolence (McCullough et al., 2002). - **Measurement:** - **Hedonic:** Subjective Well-Being Scale, PANAS. - **Eudaimonic:** Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scale (42-item). - **Self-Efficacy:** General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). - **Gratitude:** Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6). - **Cultural Considerations:** - Individualistic cultures prioritise personal happiness. - Collectivistic cultures value group harmony and reciprocity. **4. Health and Personality** - **Models of Health:** - **Biomedical Model:** Illness as purely biological. - **Biopsychosocial Model:** Includes psychological and social factors (Bashmi et al., 2023). - **Mechanisms Linking Personality to Health (Maltby et al., 2023):** - Personality influences behaviours (e.g., smoking) or biological processes. - Illness can also reshape personality over time. - **Stress and Personality:** - **Transactional Model of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984):** Stress appraisal influenced by traits like neuroticism. - **Conscientiousness:** Protective against stress and promotes healthy behaviours. - **Neuroticism:** Mixed findings, with facets like worry linked to better outcomes in specific contexts (Gale et al., 2017). - **Lifespan Models:** - **Critical Periods:** Risk during sensitive developmental stages has long-term effects. - **Accumulation Models:** Risks build over time, affecting health outcomes. - **Key Evidence:** - Conscientiousness strongly predicts longevity and well-being. - Neuroticism shows complex links, with inconsistent findings across studies. **Most Critical Insights** 1. **Intelligence:** - Fluid and crystallised intelligence are crucial for adaptation, while EI supports emotional regulation and interpersonal success. 2. **Attitudes:** - Behavioural intentions are shaped by attitudes, norms, and perceived control. - Persuasion effectiveness varies by cognitive effort (central vs peripheral processing). 3. **Positive Psychology:** - Eudaimonic well-being (flourishing) complements hedonic well-being (happiness). - Gratitude and self-efficacy enhance resilience and well-being. 4. **Personality and Health:** - Conscientiousness is protective across domains; neuroticism's effects depend on context. - Lifespan models highlight dynamic, reciprocal links between personality and health.