PSYC2017 Lectures 13-17 PDF

‭●‬ ‭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