PSYC2017 Lectures 13-17 PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by BrighterWilliamsite5570
Tags
Summary
These notes cover lectures 13-17 of PSYC2017, exploring topics such as cohort differences in personality traits and emotional regulation, using models and theories. The document also mentions experience sampling and meta-analysis studies.
Full Transcript
● Conflicting finding for neuroticism ○ Increasing USA uni students (maybe because more women in education) ○ Decreasing middle age and older USA WHOLE TRAIT THEORY ● ● COHORT DIFFERENCES ● ● ● Life events ○ Family size decreasing ○ Education increasing ...
● Conflicting finding for neuroticism ○ Increasing USA uni students (maybe because more women in education) ○ Decreasing middle age and older USA WHOLE TRAIT THEORY ● ● COHORT DIFFERENCES ● ● ● Life events ○ Family size decreasing ○ Education increasing ○ Women working increasing ○ Technology use ○ Major world events Major milestones happenlaterfor later-born cohorts ○ First job ○ Marriage ○ Buying a home ○ First child ○ Retirement Definition of traits change in cohorts ○ Eg. conscientiousness for women in 1930 = being a wife vs in 2023 = working hard at a job ● 3 CENTRAL PRINCIPLES 1. 2. 3. GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES ● ● ● ● ross temporal meta-analysis studies: compares score C means from different years Narcissism (similar for self-esteem) ○ Uni student’s narcissism has increased ■ d = 0.36 ○ Possible reasons: ■ Increase in individualism ■ Changes in educational practices, parenting practices and social media use ○ Conflicting study determines no difference, but when student split by race (asian and white), data shows upwards trend for both (ethic confounding variable) ■ Asian student have lower narcissism ■ Therefore, increasing number of asian students resulted in appearance of np change ○ An American phenomenon due to WEIRD? ■ Decrease in china Increasing intelligence ○ Flynn effect = IQ scores rising ○ Possibly due to increasing nutrition, resources, healthcare Increasing extraversion ○ Possibly due to schools emphasising social skills, service economy PSYC2017 S tate = condition at a particular time Trait = an enduring characteristic that describes or determines an individual’s behaviour across a range of situations Fleeson: personality can be conceptualised as fluctuating states as well as stable traits ○ Personality differs within the same person across time BUT average level is stable when compared to others with lower/higher levels Trait levels have both a description and explanatory part ○ Trait-DES = description of behaviour ○ Trait-EXP = cause of behaviour Trait-DES is operationalised as a density/frequency distribution of personality state (behaviour) across time ○ Not 1 value, but rather a distribution with a mean Trait-EXP = the goals/motivations/interpretations that influence how a person manifests that trait (behaves) at any given moment ○ Eg. goal = connect with people → higher extraversion EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD ● E xperience sampling method (ESM) = method of assessing states ○ Assessing behaviour at random time points to get a clear picture of how they behave in various real-world settings ○ Can measure people states multiple times a day for several days ■ Personality states ■ Emotions ■ Context ○ Can be contrasted with a questionnaire ○ States over time give frequency distribution 13 CONSTANCY OF THE BIG-5 CHANGE VS CONSISTENCY ● ● onsistency = the rank-order of people on that trait stays C the same ○ Involves >1 person ○ Eg. group of students rank for extraversion stays the same across time ○ Empirical test: correlation (r) Change = the absolute level of the trait differs ○ Involves 1 person ○ Empirical test: means compared at time 1 and time 2 META-ANALYSIS OF STUDIES ● ● ● ● ● EVIDENCE OF STABILTY ● ● Rank order stability (longitudinal study) ○ Difference in neuroticism at time 2 can be explained by the rank order at time 1 ■ Correlation (r) ○ → Personality is stable Correlation of personality and age (cross sectional study) ○ Alpha is increasing with age and Beta is decreasing with age ■ Correlation (r) ○ → Personality is stable THE FIVE FACTOR DEBATE ● EVIDENCE OF CHANGE ● L ife events theory = Life events require new behavioural, cognitive and emotional responses ○ Effects: small, strongest for first time events indicating major life transition ○ Cohort sequences study for agreeableness: ■ Community service vs military service ■ Personailty predicted choice of situation ■ Situation changed personality traits across time ■ Would the community group show an increase in agreeableness anyway? PSYC2017 Conscientiousness ○ Longitudinal: increase at each life stage ■ Only small significant in 20/30s ○ Cross sectional: same Extraversion ○ Split into social vitality and dominance ○ Longitudinal: ■ Small signifant effect of dominance ■ Negative effect for vitality ○ Cross sectional: opposite Agreeableness ○ Longitudinal: increase at each life stages ■ Only small significant in 50s/60s ○ Cross sectional: same Neuroticism ○ Longitudinal: decrease at all life stages ■ Only small significant in 20-40s ○ Cross sectional: same Openness ○ Longitudinal: increases earlier in life, the decreases later ○ Cross sectional: different, all decreasing ● ● Costa and McCrae: ○ The 5 factors are enduring and stable dispositions that manifest as behaviour ○ Traits of each factor are found in a variety of personality systems, languages, ages, sexes and races ○ They have a heritabilty and biological basis ■ Heritabilty → personality has a biological basis Eysenck: ○ These justicications are way too broad ○ Not sufficient to say 5-factor model is basic ○ There is a strong correlation ebtween A, O and C ■ Can be combined into psychotisism ■ Intellect overlaps with conscientiousnes and openness ○ No theoretical basis = unscientific ■ Heritsbilty is not sufficient to determine a biological basis ○ Appropriateness of questionaires in cohorts Nomological network = a theory, a list of laws and principles ○ Avoids subjectivity and misinterpretation of factors 14 EMOTIONS UNIVERSAL BASIC EMOTIONS ● ● The 6 basic emotions: ○ Anger ○ Disgust ○ Fear ○ Happiness ○ Sadness ○ Surprise ○ POSSIBLY contempt Evolutionary link ○ Darwin suggests these basic emotions are developed as survival tendencies and are universal (though display rules may differ between cultures) ■ Communication value ■ Suggests biological/genetic basis of emotions ■ Eg. disgust = spit out bitter food to avoid poisoning PLUTCHIK’S WHEEL OF EMOTION ● ● 8 primary emotions arranged as opposites ○ More intense emotions in the middle ○ Dyads = blend of basic emotions Less empirical evidence MODELS OF EMOTION AFFECT CIRCUMPLEX MODEL (RUSSEL) ● ● ● ircumplex models of emotion = cross over of 2 C dimensions Valence = positive → negative Core effect = underlying physiological changes that led to emotions; eg. fear → palms sweat ○ Results in subjective experience COMPONENT PROCESS MODEL ● ● ● AFFECT WHEEL (GENEVA) ● Similar to Russel’s model ○ Focuses on intensity of emotion ○ Different interpretation of arousal (as power) ● PSYC2017 ore consensus and recent M Process by which emotions occur ○ Occurs in a sequence over time ○ Gives rise to components Components = a reaction to environmental triggers 1. Appraisal with respect to goals 2. Physiological changes in brain or body 3. Action tendencies (a behaviour or response pattern for each emotion) 4. The internal experience of having a particular feeling 5. Expressions of the face, voice, and body to communicate Emotion → mood → affective trait ○ Strongly influenced by situation 15 ARNOLD’S APPRAISAL THEORY ● F eelings, expressions and physiological changes → emotion ○ Occur at the same time ○ Caused by appraisals of the situation in terms of personal meaning ○ Eg. I am sad and frown because I appraise the situation as one of loss COPING AND EMOTIONAL REGULATION ● 14 different appraisals ○ Relevances appraisals ○ Implications appraisals ○ Coping poitential appraisals ○ Normative significance appraisals TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF STRESS AND COPING ● ● ● ● HISTORICAL THEORIES OF EMOTION JAMES-LANGE THEORY ● ● Expression → feeling ○ Eg. frowning causes sadness Facial feedback hypothesis = emotions result from facial expressions even when expressions are unrelated to environment ○ Study: Jokes found funnier when smiling with pen in mouth ■ Not reproducible, only when NOT recorded ● LAZARUS’ CORE RELATIONAL THEMES CANNON-BARD THEORY ● Psychological change to the thalamus → emotion ○ Eg. frowning does not cause my sadness. I frown and am sad at the same time. oping is a transaction of person and environment C Problem-focused coping: aims to alter the problem causing distress ○ Apprasises the situation as controllable ○ Eg. Planning, acting, instrumental social support ○ Personality: higher CEA Emotion-focused coping: regulating emotional responses to problem ○ Apprasises the situation as uncontrollable ○ Eg. wishful thinking, self-blame, positive appraisal, seeking social support ○ Persoanilty: higher N, low CA Avoidance: abandoning the situation or denying its existence ○ Avoids problem and emotions ○ Apprasises the situation as uncontrollable ○ Eg. Distraction, behavioural avoidance ○ Personailty: higher N, lower C Stressor → primary appraisal (importance) → secondary appraisal (controllability) → coping response ○ Strategy-fit hypothesis = coping is more effective coping strategy fits level of controllability ● One core appraisal captures each distinct emotion ○ Not included: ■ Interest/curiosity → novelty SCHACTER-SINGER’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY ● hysiological experience and arousal → attribution of P arousal to physiological state → emotion ○ Eg. I feel sad because I feel that sensation and I attribute this to the environment ○ Involvesappraisal PSYC2017 16 MODAL MODEL OF EMOTION REGULATION ● ● ● ● S ituation → attention → appraisal → response Emotions can be regulated continuously or unconsciously at each point along the process of a response ○ Intrinsic regulation = Regulate MY emotions ○ Extrinsic regulation = Regulate OTHERS emotions Varying goals of emotional regulation ○ Hedonic goals = to feel better ○ Counter-hedonic goals = to feel worse ○ Intrumental goals ■ Task-related ■ Social goals ● Avoid conflict ● Arouse empathy ● Strengthen relationships Model is a heuristic ○ Movement occurs between levels ○ Rarely meet need for self actualisation ■ Always a motivator ○ Can be motivated by 2 needs at the same time ○ Lack of satisfaction → psycholgical ill health SELF-ACTUALISATION ● ● Regulation occurs by process model of emotion regulation ○ Each stage requires perception, valuation and action 1. Identification of the need to regulate 2. Selection of a process 3. Implementation 4. Monitor ● ● S elf-actualisation = full use and exploitation of talents, capacities and potentialities Characteristics of self-actualistion people ○ But problems with sampling ○ Important: all experienced the “peak experience” Current ideas: ○ Higher POI scores related with self actualisation ○ ‘Resilience’ rather than self actualisation HUMANISM PERSONALITY ● ● umanistic psychology = subjective experience and H accounts ○ More optimistic, about person’s future potential ○ Not predetermined by environment ○ Person is actively in charge of their own fate rather than passive recipients ○ Focus on the healthy person reaching for higher values and goals Tealiological approach = personality develops by pulling towards goals rather than a pushing environment ○ Opposite to determinism EVALUATION AND AMENDMENTS ● MARSLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS ● T o focus on B (higher-level or growth or being) needs (ie. self actualisation, truth and goodness) they must first satisfy on D (lower-level or deficit)needs (ie. safety, self eestem, love and belong) ○ Need for satisfaction = motivation ■ Also a theory of motivation PSYC2017 ● Missing: ○ C lear distinction between need for self esteem from others and ‘self’ esteem ○ Competence level between safety and love/belongingness ○ People can have fully, partially and unsatisfied needs at the same time ■ How do we determine most important partially filled need? Need to eradicate pyramid hierarchy format ○ Rather, a flow diagram like above 17
