PSYU2234 Summary - Personality & Social Psych Notes PDF

lOMoARcPSD|41366523 PSYU2234 Summary - really good summarised notes Personality and Social Psychology (Macquarie University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloade...

lOMoARcPSD|41366523 PSYU2234 Summary - really good summarised notes Personality and Social Psychology (Macquarie University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO UNIT Psychology Scope Similarities Individual behaviour differences consistent over Draw on same theories Personality time Research relies on independent and dependent variables Social Individuals’ reactions to social situations Relate to science of how people think, feel, and relate  Criticism: describes the obvious? Explanation Relies on… “Rubbish” safeguard? Falsifiability: it Common “Opposites attract” sentiments Personal experience No must be possible sense to disprove a Scientific Using experiments to find true Testing via publicly theory Yes: falsifiability approach behavioural causes verifiable observations WEEKS 1-2: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH  Drawbacks to common sense: judgment errors  Reliance on heuristics (shortcuts) in making judgments  Limited insight to reasons for behaviours (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977)  Subjects paid $1 to lie enjoyed task more than subjects paid $20 (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)  Research questions come from:  Testing theories  Demonstrating Theory:  Curiosity phenomenon (Williams and principle(s)  Testing techniques (Zadro et al (2004): Bargh (2008): physical  accounting for cyberball/ball toss) interpersonal warmth) empirical findings  Steps in research process: 1. Research question (e.g., does x lead to y?) 4. Design 2. Generate specific, directional hypotheses experiment/correlation study (e.g., x leads to y) 5. Collect data 3. Operationalise (who, what, how?) 6. Analyse data 7. Draw appropriate conclusions Design type Explanation Pros Cons Between- Ss experience one experimental Takes less time More expensive subjects condition Within-subjects Ss experience all experimental Fewer participants Takes longer conditions Factorial Multiple categorical IVs tested More efficient than single factor design Quasi- Non-lab reproductible characteristics Less resource-heavy Hard to impute experimental investigated w/out random assignment causality Correlation Measures r/ships b/w variables w/out Can study things difficult to study Difficult to impute manipulation w/ED causality  Experimental designs allow for imputation of causality through comparison (e.g., treatment vs. control group)  Importance of knowing basic experimental design:  Determining if researchers demonstrate what they claim to  Considering how to conduct own study 1 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 2: INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY RESEARCH  Defining personality:  Latin persona: mask, character  Distinctive, enduring patterns of thinking/feeling/acting characterising a person (Passer & Smith, 2019)  Psychological systems contributing to people’s enduring/distinctive patterns of experience/behaviour (Cervone & Pervin, 2019) Kluckhohn & Murray (1953): “Every human being is… Human universals …like every other human being Group differences …like some other human beings Individual differences …like no other human beings.”  Personality theories focus on common and specific features:  Idiographic approach: focus on individual uniqueness, qualitative data gained  Nomothetic approach: generalisations about people, numerical data gained  Timeline of personality theory: main behaviour determinants   1930s: personality  1980s: both interact  1950s-60s: situation  2000s: complex interaction  Personality paradox: personality is stable over time yet varies by situation  Theories focus on whole person, not parts:  Synthesis of multiple psychology areas  Persons within situations  Personality and psychopathology:  Personality research emerged from abnormal psychology Psychopathology:  Breakdown of personalities (e.g., personality disorders) study of experiences  Theory and implications for therapy indicative of psychological  Personality and wellbeing: impairment  Understanding “normal/healthy” functioning  Understanding what mental health/wellbeing requires  Personality development:  Nature vs. nurture: where do they begin and end?  Personality research and science: how do we find what is the case?  Michell (2000): critical appraisal of beliefs/theories Explanation How? Theoretical/conceptual analysis Finding: Logical Testing theories’ logical coherence  Contradictions  Heuristics  Vagueness/ambiguity Empirica Testing theories through observation Replicating previous findings l  Observing/studying personality: methods  Qualitative/quantitative data Explanation How? Pros Cons Clinical applications In-depth study of Generalisability issues Case study Interviews Direction for further one person Subject to researcher bias hypotheses Social desirability bias/deception Self-report Self-explanatory Questionnaires Fast/easy Lacking insight 2 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary Using ambiguous Rorschach test Projective Not subject to bias and stimuli to gain Thematic Interpretive issues tests deception issues personality insights apperception test Personality not understood enough to Physiological Not subject to bias and Self-explanatory PET/fMRI scans know how neurological/genetic factors measures deception issues relate (Saudino & Plomin, 1996)  Recent advances: remote behaviour sampling  Online identity management  Dark niches (e.g., trolling)  Ethnocentrism: problems w/generalisability (Markus, 2004)  Egocentrism: theories as self-reflection (biased or insightful?) 3 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 3: PSYCHODYNAMIC RESEARCH TODAY  Many psychoanalysts reject some of Freud’s ideas (Shedler, 2006) Freud (1856-1939):  Unconscious processes (or nonconscious/implicit processes)  Personality as id, ego,  Blindsight: lacking awareness of what one sees (Weiskrantz, 1986) superego  Subliminal perception studies: presenting stimuli too quickly for conscious  Un/conscious mind  Defense mechanisms IDing  psychosexuality  Mere exposure effect: repeated mere exposure  increased attractiveness (Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980)  Emotional eating (Meyer & Waller, 1999; Waller & Barter, 2005)  Subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) studies: subliminal presentation evades defenses  Schizophrenic studies:  “Mummy & I are one” condition  less psychopathology (Silverman et al, 1983)  “M & I are the same”/”M is inside me”  psychopathology unchanged (Bronstein & Rodin, 1983)  Non-schizophrenic findings in MIO conditions:  Smoking/alcohol cessation (Palmatier & Bornstein, 1980; Shurtman et al, 1982)  Improved academic performance (Ariam & Siller, 1982)  Attachment/Oedipal complex:  Increased attachment anxiety, increased sexual attraction (Biton-Bereby et al, 2019)  Increased attachment anxiety, increased romantic jealously (Biton-Bereby et al, 2020)  Evaluation of SPA findings: controversial  Meta-analysis: SPA findings moderate/robust, effect stronger for males (Hardaway, 1990)  Defense mechanisms: mental content prevented from becoming known  Ego wards off painful affects (Willick, 1995)  Broadly accepted, historically considered untestable  Types:  10 defences (A Freud, 1936)  Valliant’s 4 levels of defenses: psychotic  immature  neurotic/intermediate  mature  Problems: finding evidence  Retrospective reconstruction helps (A Freud, 1938)  Clinical case studies provide evidence Explanation Example Studies Repressed attitudes Homophobia Reaction replaced by Adams et al, 1996, Bernat et al, 2001, Carnaghi et al, 2011, concealing formation opposite conscious Weinstein et al, 2012 homosexuality behaviour Long/short-term effects: (Kortte & Wegener, 2004)  Adaptive: + adjustment, - medical complications, recovery  Maladaptive: patient-delay, denying rehab/treatment need Repressive coping (Ginzburg et al, 2002) Not acknowledging Repressors: 10-20% gen. pop. Denial and Defensive or believing  Low trait anxiety, high defensiveness (Weinberger et al, 1979) information personality styles distressing or  High phys. arousal (Myers, 2000; Brown et al, 1996) avoidance in health settings: threatening realities  Common in older adults; + happiness (Erskine et al, 2015) Vigilance-avoidance theory (Derakshan et al, 2007) Blunters/monitors (Miller, 1987): scanning vs. ignoring  Ms perceive higher disease severity (Constant et al, 2005)  Tailoring health info for Bs (Williams-Piehota et al, 2005) 4 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 3: NEUROPSYCHOANALYSIS AND DREAMS  Project for a Scientific Psychology (Freud, 1895/1950): basing provisional psych. ideas on organic substructures  Dream interpretation:  Biological frustrations (i.e., thirst) (Minnesota Starvation Experiment, 1944-5)  Psychical conflict (fighting against own wishes i.e., repression, censorship, disguise (Boag, 2006))  Latent content (censored, primary process) and manifest content (literal subject matter)  Freud: dreams = meaningful  Dreams and REM sleep:  Aserinsky & Kleitman (1953):  Hobson & McCarley (1977):  Occurs in 90-100min cycles  Activation-synthesis model: dreams due to  Pons as active when awake (paradox) brain stem activity in REM sleep  REM dreams vivid/visual, NREM not  Dreams: motivationally neutral, meaningless  Hobson & Pace-Schott (1999): bizarreness due to lost organising capacity  REM sleep behaviour disorder: wife strangled during bad dream in 2009  Dreaming can be independent of REM sleep:  Vivid dreaming prior to REM sleep (Solms, 1999; 2000)  Brainstem lesions do not eliminate dreaming (Bischof & Bassetti, 2004; Solms, 2000)  Damaged mesolimbic-mesocortical dopamine pathway  dreams cease, REM unaffected (Solms, 2000)  Dopamine/dream connection suggests connection b/w dreams/desires  Affective Neuroscience (Panksepp, 1998, 2015):  Primary emotional systems: seeking, lust, fear, rage, care, panic/grief, play  MMDP associated with seeking (appetitive foraging)  Evidenced by within-/cross-species neural circuitry  Drug dreams and Freudian theory: addictive drugs hijack native reward system  Biological drive frustration paradigm (Colace, 2014)  Freudian theory: drug addicts will dream of taking drugs during withdrawals  Drug dreams x nicotine/alcohol/coke/amphetamine/heroin, x gambling (Colace, 2004, 2014, 2020)  Hobson (2013) concludes Freudian dream theory obsolete  Neuropsychoanalysis links psychoanalysis/neurosciences (Solms & Turnbull, 2011)  Studies instinctual-emotional brain networks  Subjective data not solid foundation for psychoanalysis as science  Psychoanalysis x neuropsychoanalysis:  Neuroscience irrelevant to psychoanalysis (Blass & Carmeli, 2007, 2015)  Criticism: biologistic/reductionist 5 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 4: TRAIT APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY  Nomothetic approach: traits = dimensions, qualitative measurement  Trait approaches:  Personality: A Psychological Interpretation (Allport, 1937) Trait: a tendency  Cardinal, central, secondary traits consistent  Idiographic vs. nomothetic distinction across time and  Focus on unique traits place  Eysenck’s 3 Factor model:  Extra/introversion, neuroticism, psychoticism  Biological bases of traits:  Ascending reticular activation system: high arousal = introversion  Limbic system = neuroticism (anxiety)  Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1990, 2004, 2015) - OCEAN  Lexical hypothesis: traits identified through language  Traits highly heritable, enviro. Influence shape expression (McCrae, 2004)  Biologically based universals:  Age-changes: ↓ NEO, ↑ OC by 30yo – maturation (McCrae, 2002; Terracciano et al, 2010)  By location?  FFM replicated in 50+ societies (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005)  Big 2 dimensions (prosociality, industriousness) for Tsimane Bolivian people (Gurven et al, 2013)  Traits shape culture (McCrae, 2004): e.g., Western vs. Eastern cultures  Challenges:  Generational/cohort effects: N/E increased over 50 years  Acculturation studies: immigrants w/similar E/O/A scores to new country  May be accounted for by selective migration  Personality disorders: enduring reactional patterns, culturally deviant, pervasive/inflexible, lead to distress Cluster Characterisation Personality disorders A Odd, eccentric Paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal B Dramatic, emotional, erratic Antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic C Fearful, anxious Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive  Categorical model distinguishes clinical diagnoses qualitatively in DSM-V  Shortcomings (Widiger & Trull, 2007; Schmeck et al, 2013):  High comorbidity rates of PDs  Many ways to diagnose same PD (high heterogeneity)  Commonest dx: PD not otherwise specified  Low inter-rater reliability (different Dx given to same presentation)  Dimensional model: PDs as maladaptive trait variances merging into normality/each other (FFM assumed) DSM-V traits Low High Openness n/a Eccentricity Conscientiousnes Impulsivity Rigid perfectionism s Extraversion Avoidant Attention-seeking Agreeableness Manipulativeness Submissiveness Neuroticism n/a Separation insecurity  Clinical implications of FFM on PDs:  Greater uniformity for treatment options (e.g., interpersonal goals for E/A, emotional stability goals for N)  Psychotherapy x pharmacotherapy  FFM assessment scales for PDs (Crego et al, 2018)  Unclear clinical utility (Crego et al, 2016) 6 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary 7 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 4: PERSONALITY AND PHYSICAL HEALTH  Risk and resilience as predictors of physical health:  Diathesis-stress model: predisposition + environmental stress  Influence on behaviour, coping/appraising, physiology Characterisation Studies A Competitive, Coronary heart disease: time-pressured,  ↑ elevation in S/DBP in structured interviews (but not Jenkins Activity Survey) (Contrada, 1989) combative,  Systematic review: inconsistent evidence b/w tA x CHD (Kuper et al, 2002) ambitious  No association (Sykes et al, 2002; Nadi et al, 2008; Ikeda et al, 2008) B Opposite of type Coronary heart disease A  B-high personalities had least DBP reactivity (Contrada, 1989) D Distressed Around 20% gen. pop. Mechanisms:  Association b/w tD and unhealthy lifestyle (O’Connor et al, 2008)  Pessimism, poor treatment adherence Cardiovascular disease:  tD a vulnerability factor in CVD progression (O’Dell et al, 2011)  tD x major adverse cardiac events = positive association  tD x health-related quality of life = negative association Coronary heart disease:  Some association b/w tD x poor clinical/patient-reported outcomes (Kupper & Denollet, 2018)  tD predicts longer acute brain dysfunction (Matsuishi et al, 2019) Pathways unclear C Cooperative, Cancer-prone, suggested by Temoshok (1987) unassertive, High arousal may reduce immune system function (Temoshok, 1987) emotional Anxiety/neuroticism as protective against cancer (Kissen & Eysenck, 1962) suppression,  Correlation/causation, retrospective compliance, No association b/w: helplessness,  N/E x cancer in Swedish prospective twin study (Hansen et al, 2005) hopelessness  N/E x cancer risk/survival in Swedish/Finnish epidemiological study (Nakaya et al, 2010)  tC traits x cancer outcomes (Price et al, 2001) Inconsistent findings (Blatný & Adam, 2008) No association b/w cancer risk/mortality x personality (Jokela et al, 2014)  Repressors/repressive defensiveness and physical health:  Poor physical health (Myers, 2010)  RC as cause/effect of breast cancer development indeterminate (McKenna et al, 1999)  increased risk of death, myocardial infarction (Denollet et al, 2008)  Repressors unlikely to report distress  Underestimating impacts on heart of stress, noncompliance, physiological stress?  Poor heart attack survival outcomes in high-contact interventions (Frasure-Smith et al, 2002)  Association b/w RC x cardiovascular diseases (Mund & Mitte, 2012)  RC consequence of cancer Dx  Personality and dementia:  Change: Dementias: syndrome  Inhibition loss, ↑ apathy, suspicion, aggression of thinking and social  ↑ rigidity, egocentricity, ↓ emotional control (Balsis et al, 2005) symptoms interfering with normal functioning  High N/low C profiles: poor health choices, high depression risk, worse health profiles – which are dementia risk factors (Aschwander et al, 2020)  High N x dementia risk associated, low C x DR a predicted direction  High C protective factor (Cipriani et al, 2015)  Personality and longevity: conscientiousness a consistent predictor (Bogg & Roberts, 2004)  Adaptive defences predict late-life health outcomes (Malone et al, 2013) 8 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary 9 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 5: PERSONALITY AND ADDICTION  Addiction: disorder of brain reward system (DSM-5, 2013) Characterisation Examples Substance Continued use of substances despite Tobacco, alcohol, stimulants, sedatives, related problems cannabis, opioids Behaviou Continued engagement in behaviour Gambling, exercise, shopping, video games r despite negative impacts on self and others  Denial: of addiction, of need for treatment  Common feature of addiction (Rinn et al, 2002)  May be cognitive deficit (Gould, 2010) or defense  Existence of addictive personalities:  Historic: addiction-prone personality, psychological weaknesses; method. issues (i.e., use of projective tests)  Personality/SES/life history do not differ b/w people w/ and w/out addictions (Gendreau & Gendreau, 1970)  No set of personality traits account for all addictions (Amodeo, 2015; Littlefield & Sher, 2016)  ↓ C/↑ N common factors for all addictions O C E A N Studies Notes Smoking ↓ ↓ ↑ Malouff et al (2006) Modest r/ship Malouff et al (2007), Modest r/ship Alcohol ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Zilberman et al (2018) Drug use Compulsive sex. ↓ ↓ ↑ Zilberman et al (2018) Lowest A/C beh. Gambling ↓ ↑ Zilberman et al (2018) Income is an additional factor  Dash et al (2019): alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and gambling disorder  High comorbidity  All four: ↑ N, ↓ A, C  Nicotine: ↓ E  Cannabis: ↓ E, ↑ O  Personality as predictor for addiction: (Elkins et al, 2006) Dependence Notes Negative emotionality Constraint : Nicotine Alcohol High Low Additional risk factor: being male Illicit drugs  Longitudinal study: gambling, nicotine, alcohol, cannabis addiction onset (Slutske et al, 2005)  Same dimensional conclusions as Elkins  Gambling shares personality profile predictors  Personality changes due to addiction:  Changed neurology (Berridge, 2017) PFC controls planning,  Prefrontal cortex dysfunction (Goldstein & Volkow, 2011) attention, emotional regulation, self-control  Women x alcohol: ↑ impulsiveness, verbal aggression (recovery: ↓ irritability, novelty-seeking) (Östland et al, 2007)  ↓ alcohol use  change in C/N b/w 18-35yo (Littlefield et al, 2009; 2010)  ↑ alcohol use predicted by ↑ novelty seeking, impulsivity (Quinn et al, 2011)  Little evidence of personality change after illicit drug abuse (Kroenke et al, 2020) 10 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 5: CRIME AND PERSONALITY  “Born criminal”: predisposed to crime (Cesare Lombroso) Crimes include:  Ethical issues:  Against people or property  Self-fulfilling prophecies  Violent crime  Profiling (falsely accusing or excluding suspects)  Sexual assault  Rehabilitating criminals  Drug-related crime  White collar crime  Risk factors (excluding personality) include age, gender, poverty  Cybercrime  Psychosocial risk factors: natal smoking, hyperactivity, internalised frustrations (Murray et al, 2010)  Underlying biology  high-PEN  criminal personality (Eysenck, 1977)  Issues: sample bias, underrepresentation, “hidden criminal” problem (Schuessler & Cressey, 1960)  Negative emotionality + impulsivity = greater risk of delinquency (Caspi et al, 1994)  Antisocial behaviour is associated with hostility and poor impulse control (Miller & Lynam, 2001)  Sexual assault:  A/C levels: SA perps = non-perps > rape perps (Voller & Long, 2010) (self-report)  Perpetrators distinguished by higher psychopathy and narcissism (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2012)  White-collar crime: predicted by ↓ agreeableness/honesty, ↑ psychopathy/narcissism (Pusch & Holtfreter, 2021)  Antisocial personality disorder: repetitive, irresponsible, delinquent behaviour  Most common PD dx (Meloy & Yakeley, 2011)  Dx supported by evidence of conduct disorder as a minor  3%/1% vs. 47%/21% (M/F, pop./jail) (Gibbon et al, 2010; Fazel & Danesh, 2002) Conduct disorder:  80-85%: comorbid sub. addiction (mostly alcohol) (Moeller & Dougherty, 2001) aggression to  Formal dx > symptoms > no evidence = criminal severity (DeLisi et al, 2019) people/animals, property destruction, deceit, theft,  Caused by genetic/environmental factors (esp. child abuse) serious rule-breaking  Individuals unlikely to seek help:  Little/no evidence of treatment efficacy (Meloy & Yakeley, 2014; Wilson, 2014; Gibbon et al, 2020) 11 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 6: PSYCHOPATHY  Psychopaths tend to conceal tendencies well (Cleckley, 1988)  Characterised by predation, emotional detachment, callousness, impulsivity, antisocial behaviour (Hare, 2003)  1% gen. pop. vs. 20-40% prison pop.  ASPD x psychopathy: Cause Characterisation Effects Unresponsive to behavioural reinforcement Low anxiety (Lykken, 1995; Frick et al, 2003) Primary Genetic Emotional Decreased empathy (Blair et al, 2006) impairment Low emotional intelligence (Megías et al, 2018) Diminished conscience (Herpertz & Sass, 2000) Secondar Acquired, esp. through adverse childhood High anxiety y experiences (Moreira et al, 2020)  Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R): 4 psychopathy dimensions:  Interpersonal (e.g., predation)  Affective functioning (e.g., callousness)  Lifestyle (e.g., impulsive)  Antisocial tendencies (e.g., lawbreaking)  Generally studied in prisons however…  Is crime central to psychopathy? (Skeem, 2011; Skeem & Cooke, 2010)  Organisational psychopathy  Predictors:  High Factor 2 predicts antisocial conduct (Leistico et al, 2008)  Psychopathy predicts recidivism (Walters, 2003)  Psychopathy x sadism highly correlate (Holt et al, 1999; O’Connell & Marcus, 2019)  Causes: Sadism: hurting others  Genetics > environment (Blair et al, 2006; Moreira et al, 2020) for pleasure  Smaller amygdala (Blair et al, 2006)  emotional dysfunction  Studies: correlational, cross-sectional  Aversive childhood experiences: psychopathy generally preceding  Reduction in threat responsiveness rather than increase (Blair et al, 2006)  Psychopathy may evoke aversive abusive experiences (Moreira et al, 2020)  Findings:  No increase in arousal to threat stimuli (Hare, 1991)  Lower GSR for negative tasks (Lorber, 2004)  No increase in startle response (Benning et al, 2005)  Negative association b/w Factor 1 x threat processing (Kozhuharova et al, 2019)  Instrumental (task-oriented) aggression primarily (Blair et al, 2006)  93% vs. 48% (P vs. non-P) of homicides (Woodworth & Porter, 2002)  Treatment: mixed findings  Increased likelihood of inpatient aggression (Hildebrand et al 2004)  In-session disruption high (Hobson et al, 2000)  Does therapy make them better or worse?  Worse: more study needed (D’Silva et al, 2004)  Some Ss became more aggressive, most did not (Chakhssi et al, 2010)  Better: not demonstrated (Hecht et al, 2018)  Proposed drug therapy: antidepressants, MDMA, oxytocin; more study needed (Thompson, 2014) 12 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|41366523 Caitlin Savins PSYU2234: Social & Personality Psychology – Summary WEEK 6: DARK TRIAD/TETRAD Psychopathy Narcissism Machiavellianism Predatory/antisocial behaviour Grandiose self-view Ends justify means Detached emotionally Lacking empathy Manipulation of others Callous, lacking empathy Entitlement Disregard for others Impulsive Need for admiration Little value for family/community  Dark triad:  Overt narcissists are grandiose, covert narcissists are hypersensitive/vulnerable (Wink, 1991)  Correlations:  DT traits not equivalent (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Furnham et al, 2013)  Substantially inter-correlated (Muris et al, 2017)  Males > females on all (Paulhus & Williams, 2002)  Negatively correlated with FFM trait of agreeableness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002)  Reflect exploitative social orientation (Jonason et al, 2009)  Similarities and differences: Similarities Differences Assessment items Ego threats  aggression (Twenge & Narcissism Campbell, 2003) Other-oriented: Playing the long game:  “I want to be  Deception/manipulation (Jonason et admired” Machiavellianis Callousnes Motivated by gain al, 2014)  “I always get my m s (instrumental or  Enjoyment of deception (Baughman way” material) et al, 2014) Impulsive, immediate/short-term Self-oriented: Psychopathy  Bullying (Goodboy & Martin, 2015)  “I lack remorse”  Emotional deficits: (Jonason & Krause, 2013)  All lack cognitive/affective empathies  All correlate w/alexithymia (feeling-identification)  Psychopathy most associated w/:  Antisocial behaviour/aggression, of the 3 (Muris et al, 2017)  Risky sexual behaviour (Jonason et al, 2010)  Assessment:  Limitations: self-reporting, ethnocentric  People w/D3 traits disguise darker traits to others (Muris et al, 2017)  Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010)  Short Dark Triad (SD3) (Jones & Paulhus, 2014)  Dark tetrad: everyday sadism  Measured by Varieties of Sadistic Experience scale  High sadism predicted: (Buckels et al, 2013)  Enjoyment of grinding named bugs  Unprovoked aggression  Light triad (Kaufmann et al, 2019): conceptual opposite of D3  Kantianism (value for human greater than  Humanism (value for human dignity) for what they offer)  Faith in humanity  Subtracting Ss’ D3 scores from L3 scores indicate people tend towards L3 more 13 Downloaded by Sophi Tarran ([email protected])