Lec 7 - Final

Question 1

Paper

Diets don’t work

• bio
• psych reason
• TRaci mann 4 strategy
  *

Answer 1

• Diets don’t work
  
  • Bio: genes set point
  • Psych/nro
    
    • Brains are hardwired to want food for survival
    • Restricting calories creates psych stress response -> weight gain
  • 1 do not penalizing yourself for falling into temptation; and think tempting foods as a generic category
    
    • Ex. think a glazed donut just a dessert; don’t think doughnut has chocolate glaze
  • 2 Focus on external changes
    
    • Use smaller plates, take smaller portions
  • 3 put obstacles b/w self and unhealth foods – this take adv of most ppl’s tendencies tb lazy
    
    • This makes it easier to avoid unhealthy foods and access healthy ones
  • 4 Ex. eat veggie first daily at dinner
    
    • I do this as I’ll eat more of it when I am super hungry and when there are not other temptations around
    • This is working w/ human nature instead of against it

Question 2

Traci - 3 reasons why ppl diet

Answer 2

• 1. They believe they cannot be beautiful, worthy, loveable unless they are thin
• 2. They believe not being able to stay thin is a sign of weakness, lack of SC and personal failings
• 3. They fear for their health, they don’t understand that they can be healthy w/o dieting

Question 3

Obesity rates

• Gov policies and obesity rates
• • Hall 2009 study
• RMR of slim ppl
• Ppl’s weight after intense weight loss
• persistent metabolic adaptation
• • Masa ppl - overfeeding and weight

Answer 3

Food for thought notes

• Gov tell ppl to eat less fat and carbs → more obesity
• When we try to eat less = more overweight Guidelines for gov: eat less fat
• Hall 2009
  
  • Study contestants in “the biggest loser”
  • After 30 wks of vigorous exercise and diet, contestants drop on avg 130 pounds
  • They were slimmer
  • But resting metabolic rate decreased
    
    • RMR = energy needed for body to work
      
      • Ex. pump blood blink
    • This is expected as it takes less energy to run a smaller body
    • Ppl on avg burnt 300 cal less
  • Follow up study
    
    • 14/16 ppl gained weight
    • 3 returned to initial weight
    • Some 30 or 50 pounds heavier than initial weight
    • Sound like their willpower failed
    • But that’s not true
    • Contestants were still exercising
    • They were still eating less
      
      • Eat 400 calories less compared to day 1 of competition
    • What’s happening: body is on “persistent metabolic adaptation”
      
      • IOW: bodies were stuck on economy mode
• Masa ppl
  
  • Consider fatness as a sign of wealth and virility
  • Guru walla
    
    • Eat a lot to achieve bulging stomach; duration – 2 mo
    • One person ate 18k calories, gained 65 lbs
    • Ppl vomit, fart, poop, and pee more
  • Results: the Masa men cannot maintain their gained weight
  • They were back to being skinny

Question 4

TB: OH and SC

• OH lessons SC in 2 ways
  *

Answer 4

• OH lessons SC in 2 ways
  
  • 1 Lower blood glucose
  • 2 Reduce self-awareness
• It affects b w/ inner conflict – part of you want to do smth, another part doesn’t
  
  • Ex. hv sex w/ wrong person, spend too much money, get into a fight
• Clapton said he prayed for help every morning and night
• SC sometimes happens instantly (like St. A)

Question 5

TB: Effect of AA

• 2 Issue w/ AA +ve studies
• What studies suggest
• 2 SC strategies used
• Other strategies
  
  • Warehousing
  • Peers

Answer 5

• AA defenders state alcoholics who frequently attend AA meetings drink less
• Issue – cause and effect
  
  • Don’t know direction of causal relation
  • Maybe those who fail are too ashamed to show up OR have less motivation and more psych issues
• McKellar
  
  • Tracked 2k men w/ drinking problems for 2 yrs
  • Attending AA meetings led to fewer future problems w/ drinking
    
    • Not the reverse (no evidence the presence/absence of drinking problems affect attendance at meetings)
    • Benefits of AA remained after accounting ppl’s initial lv of motivation and psych problems
    • Other rs conclude AA is more effective than nothing
    • Failure rate/relapse is high, but ppl often resume abstinence
    • AA is as effective as professional treatments
• Project MATCH
  
  • Test the theory that all treatment works, but not equally well for all
  • Presumption: some ppl do better in AA, others benefit from professional treatment
  • Some alcoholics were assigned to AA, others when to clinical programs (CBT or motivational enhancement therapy)
  • Some alcoholics were randomly assigned; others were matched to treatment type that was seen best for them
  • Results: all treatments were equally effective; there was little benefit to try to match ppl to optimal treatment
  • It is not clear if any of the treatments were better than nothing; project doesn’t hv control gp (no treatment); can’t tell if ppl would hv done just as well alone
• AA is as good as or even better than professional treatments
• Rs haven’t figured out what it does
• They use some familiar ways
  
  • SC starts w/ setting goals/standards
    
    • AA help ppl set clear and attainable goal
      
      • Ex. do not hv a drink today
      • AA’s mantra – one day at a time
  • SC depends on monitoring
    
    • Members get chips for remaining sober for certain #s of consecutive days
    • When they get up to speak, they start by saying how many days they hv been sober
    • Members also choose a sponsor
      
      • They are supposed to remain in regular/ daily contact
• Other explanations for correlation b/w attending AA meetings and drinking less
  
  • Warehousing
    
    • Term used to explain what HS does
    • Sociologists see sku as a warehouse that stores kids during the day, keep them out of trouble
    • AA meetings – spend not drinking
  • Social support
    
    • Everyone can SC for the sake of social acceptance
    • Ex. peer approval
      
      • Ppl don’t enjoy 1^st taste of OH or tobacco
      • It takes discipline to inject heroine to yourself the first time

Question 6

TB: social support and SC

• Alone and wellbeing
• Alone and drugs
• Why is AA storytelling helpful?
• Kast et al
  
  • managing loan study
    
    • Discussion vs none vs text messaging results
      *

Answer 6

Heaven (like Hell) is other ppl

• DiClemente
  
  • Study men who had to choose b/w getting treatment vs going to prison
  • Those who were better at getting support from others, were more likely to remain sober
• Social forces can operate in 2 diff ways
  
  • 1. Rs show being alone is stressful
       * Ppl have more mental and physical illness when they are alone compared to have rich social networks
       * Part of the reason: those w/ mental and physical problems make fewer friends; some potential friends shy away from those who are maladjusted
  • 2. Being alone lead to problems like drug abuse
• • 19C bbq law
    * Men who gather for barbecue have to drink until they were soused *drunk
    * Refusing to drink = insult to host and party
• Studies
  
  • Ppl drink more when they’re encouraged by friends
  • Ppl w/ addictions need social support for no drugs/drinking
  • AA can be helpful
  • Alcoholics who look for help from others to stop drinking (ex. clinic, AA) stopped drinking
• Act of telling a story force you to organize thoughts, monitor b, and discuss goals for the future
• Goals are more real once you speak it out loud, esp if you know the audience will monitor you
• Telling your spouse -> more likely to stick w/ it
• Kast et al
  
  • Low-income entrepreneurs received loans from nonprofit
  • Ppl met in gps every week or 2, receive training to monitor repaying their loans
  • Randomly assigned to diff saving programs
    
    • Some – given no-fee saving account
    • Some – hv the same account + opportunity to announce their saving goals and hv progressed discussed in regular meetings
  • Results: those subject to peer scrutiny saved twice as much money as others
• Follow up
  
  • Women receive text msg noting their weekly progress (are lack) and info on how the rest of the savers in the gp were doing
  • These DMs are as effective as the meetings b/c the msg allow women to regular monitor and compare themselves w/ peers virtually
• Smoking -> addictive to smokers
• Christakis and Fowler
  
  • Study results: stopping smoking habit is contagious
  • If a member of a married couples stop smoking, the other spouse has a higher chance to stop as well
  • This applies to siblings, and friends, and coworkers in a small firm

Question 7

TB: Religion and SC

• Religion and lifespan
• Religion and good habits
• Religion and SC
  
  • Why are they better?
  • willpower - fast, pray, kneel
  • monitoring - God and other believers, confessions
  • attention regulation & prayer
• Condition: intrinsic vs extrinsic
  *

Answer 7

• McCullough
  
  • Meta-analysis
  • Nonreligious ppl died off sooner
  • Religiously active person is 25% more likely than nonreligious person to remain alive
• Religious ppl are less likely than others to dev unhealthy habits
• Willoughby
  
  • Analysed studies of religion and SC
  • Religion promotes fam values and social harmony b/c some important values are related to God’s will or religious values
  • Other benefits: religion reduces ppl’s inner conflicts among goals and values
  • Conflict goals impede SR
  • Religion reduces this problem by providing believers w/ clear priorities
• • Religious meditation require explicit and effortful attention regulation - willpower
    
    • Pray no wandering
    • Pray at certain times
    • Periods of fasting (ex. month of Ramadan, 40 days of Lent)
    • Require believer to hold specific poses (ex. kneeling, lotus position) so long they become uncomfortable and require discipline to maintain them
• Religion improves monitoring of b (another central step of SC)
  
  • God, ppl in church during mass, outside socials
• • Religion encourages monitoring
    
    • Via rituals (ex. sacrament of confession, Jewish holiday Yom Kippur)
    • Need ppl to reflect on moral failures and other shortcomings
• Rs: ppl who attend religious services for extrinsic reasons (ex. want to impress others, make social connection) don’t hv the same high lv of SC as true believers

Question 8

TB: discounting

• Hyperbolic discounting
• Bright line vs fuzzy line

Answer 8

• Hyperbolic discounting: we can ignore temptations when they’re not immediately available
• But once they’re right in front of us, we lose perspective and forget our distant goals
• (discounting follow hyperbola)
• George Ainslie
  
  • temptation of immediate cash, we irrationally devalue future prize
  • Results: as we approach a ST temptation, our tendency to discount the future follow the steep curve of a hyperbola (aka hyperbola discounting)
  • As you devalue the future (ex. heroin addicts who can’t think beyond the future), you lose concern about a hangover, you don’t focus on your vow to go sober
  • Future benefits seem trivial compared to immediate pleasure
  • • Some ppl can see drinking or smoking as an isolated event
• Some ppl can’t control themselves once they start drinking/smoking
• So they need to prepare themselves
• They need bright lines
  
  • Fuzzy line: I will drink and smoke moderately
  • Bright line: zero tolerance; total abstinence w/ no exceptions
  • Not practical for all problems but works well in many situations
  • Follow it like a commandment/sacred rule

Question 9

TB: Weight lose

• 3 main rules
• Oprah paradox

Answer 9

• Techniques that help you lose weight more likely
• Follow 3 rules
• 1. Never go on a diet
• 2. Never vow to give up chocolate or any other food
• 3. Whether you are judging yourself or judging others, never equate being overweight w/ having weak willpower
• Oprah paradox: even ppl w/ excellent SC have a hard to consistently control their weight
• They can use their willpower to thrive in many ways (ex. school, work), but not on staying slim
• Then she put it back on -> 212 pounds -> dieted -> 145 pounds -> lost control -> 237 pounds

Question 10

TB: WTH effect

• WTH/Counterregulatory eating
• Dieters on how many sandwiches they ate
• Which SC stage dieters fail to do?

Answer 10

The what the hell effect

• Counterregulatory eating; aka what the hell effect
  
  • Dieters have fixed target for max daily cals
  • When they exceed it (ex. drank large milkshakes), they see their diet as blown for the day
  • They mentally see this as a failure
  • So they think: what the hell, I might as well enjoy myself today
  • This results in a binge -> put on more weight than original lapse
  • It’s not rational
• Other study
  
  • Hungry dieters and nondieters
  • Some dieters were given food w/ enough cals to put them over the daily limit
  • Then the entire gp was served sandwiches cut into quarters
  • Then all were asked how many quarters they ate
  • Most ppl answer the qs w/ no trouble
  • Dieters who exceed their daily limit were clueless
    
    • Some overestimated; some underestimated
    • Dieters who exceed cals were more off the mark than nondieters or dieters under their food limit
  • Once dieters overate -> what the hell effect -> stop counting -> less aware than nondieters on what they were eating
• Monitoring is step 2 of SC -> dieters now fail to monitor

Question 11

TB: Studies

• Why dieters fail at stop eating signals
• Emo suppression and food intake
• Where the M&Ms are and how much was eaten
• 2 Strategies
  *

Answer 11

The dieter’s catch-22

• Obesity made them more likely to go on diets -> diets cause them to rely on external instead of internal cues
• Dieters learn to eat based on a plan, not on inner feelings and cravings; dieting = hungry all the time
• So diet = not to eat when you are hungry (ignore it)
• You tune out start eating signal
• But start and stop signals are intertwined
• So you lose tough w/ stop eating signal too
• Once you break your rule, you hv nothing to guide you
• Ppl increase their rating
• Vohs and Heatherton
  
  • Had young women, chronic dieters
  • Show move that usually ake ppl to cry
  • Half of the ppl -> Suppress emo responses internally and externally
  • Other half -> cry as they want
  • Then dieters fill out questionnaire for their mood
  • Then taken to another rm on an unrelated task -> rating kinds of ice cream
  • Ice cream in large partly fill tubs (impression that experimenters have no idea how much was there and how much each person ate)
  • Tubs were weighed b4 and after
  • Results: no connection b/w women’s moods and eating
  • Those who were sadder didn’t eat more ice-cream
  • Those who had to supress emo had a harder time to suppress appetite
  • They are more icecream (50% more) than those who can cry
• Another study
  
  • Young F dieters were tempted w/ M&Ms placed in screening rm w/ her as they watch documentary
  • For some, it was placed nearby, and had to keep resisting the temptation
  • For others, bowl was placed on the other side of the room, easier to resist
  • All taken to another rm w/ no food
  • Given impossible puzzle to solve
  • Those who have the M&M nearby gave up sooner
• • Some defensive strategies
    
    • 1 Postponed pleasure ploy: tell yourself you can have dessert later and eat smth else
    • Body wants sweet foods b/c it is the most effective way to restore energy
    • 2 Healthy foods also give energy
    • When you are depleted from diet, you have stronger desire foro forbidden foods

Question 12

TB: strategies

• Websites
• II
• Peer pressure

Answer 12

Planning for battle

• SC strategies
  
  • Keep fattening food out of reach and sight
  • Put candy inside a drawer rather than on a desk
  • Brush your teeth early to avoid late night snack
• Weight loss agreement websites and charity cause
• Another strategy: implementation intention
  
  • Implementation intention: If x happens, I will do y
  • The more you use this technique to transfer control of b to automatic processes, the less effort you spend
  • Stroop test of mental effort
    
    • Implementation plan: If I see a word, I will ignore its meaning, and only look at the second letter and the colour of the ink
    • This specific if then plan made the task more automatic, require less conscious mental effort, and is more doable when willpower is weakened
    • Food at party
      
      • Plan: if they serve chips, I will refuse them all
      • If there is a buffet, I will only eat veggies and lean meat
  • Rs analyse social networks: those w/ obese ppl cluster together; some for thin
  • Your chances of being obese increases more as your best friend gains weight than your neighbour gains weight
  • It’s true ppl reinforce one another’s b and standards
  • The more you spend time w/ ppl who care about losing weight, you are more likely to lose weight
  • Some phenom w/ smokers; they are more likely to quit if their friends and relatives quit
  • Peer pressure explain why Europe ppl weight less than Americans
  • Social norm: eating only during mealtimes
  • The social norms produce habits that conserve willpower
  • If its’ 4 pm, then I won’t eat anything

Question 13

TB: monitoring and diet

• Monitor weight and SC
• monitor food intake and SC
• Accuracy in estimating food cals
  
  • “low fat” labels
• Socializing and food intake
• Plate size and food intake

Answer 13

• Those who weigh themselves daily were more successful to keep their weight from coming back
• They were less likely to go on eating binges, they don’t show signs of disillusion or distress
• The more carefully and frequently you monitor yourself, the better you control yourself
• Monitor what food you put in body
  
  • If you keep a record of what you eat, you consume fewer calories
  • Study
    
    • Those who kepy a food diary lost twice as much weight as those who used other techniques
  • We tend to underestimate how much food is on a plate
  • Also, companies create health halo
• Tierney, Chandon, Chernev
  
  • Ppl shown pics of Applebee’s meal
  • Then were shown the same meal that was labelled Trans Fat free
  • Ppl rated those w/ the label having lower calories
  • The label translated into -ve calories
• Ppl underestimate the cals in “low fat” food and take bigger helpings
• • Ppl eat more when they are eating while socializing or watch TV
• Study
  
  • Female dieters tripled amount of food they ate when they were absorbed in film
• Ppl eat more at meals w/ fam and friends as they pay more attention to the company and less to what they eat
• Wansink
  
  • Soup bowls w/ hidden tubes
  • Ppl keep sipping from bottomless bowl as they are used to eating what is put in front of them
  • When food is served on large plates, drink in wide glasses, popcorn in big bags; we underestimate the amount of cal
• Easier to monitor when you clear the table slowly
  
  • If waiters cleared away chicken wings bones faster, ppl can fool themselves into forgetting how many wings they’d eaten

Question 14

TB: more studies

• Mead and Patrick
  
  • H: Ziegarnik and dessert
  • Result
• Real food study - M&M and movie
  
  • 3 conditions
  • Result
• Part 2 (leftovers)
  
  • Result
• Effect of Postpone vs Swear off foods

Answer 14

Never say Never

• Mead and Patrick
  
  • Dessert cart experiment
  • Study diff kinds of self denial
  • Mental exp: use pics of tasty appealing foods
  • Subjects told to imagine dessert
  • Some imagined choosing their fav and eat it
  • Others imagine passing up dessert in 1 of 2 ways
    
    • Some imagined they decided not to eat the dessert at all (pleasure denied)
    • Some were hold they will have some later (pleasure postponed)
  • Experimenters measure how often ppl were troubled or distracted by yearnings for dessert
  • Rs knew Zeigarnik effect: unfinished tasks intrude the mind; so they expect desserts is most distracting for those postponed pleasure
  • Results: opposite
    
    • Those postponed pleasure were less troubled by chocolate cae than the other 2 groups
    • Postponed pleasure did not intrude as much as forgone ones
• Other study w/ real food
  
  • Ppl were brough in one at a time to watch a short film, sitting next to a bowl of M&Ms
  • Randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions
    
    • 1 imagine they decide to eat as much as they want while watching the movie
    • 2 imagine they decide not to eat any candy
    • 3 imagine they decide not to eat MnM now but will have them later
  • Results 1: Those who were told to assume they had to eat it ate more than the ones told to deny or postpone
  • Then fill out questionnaire
  • Then rs gave bowl of M&M to person
  • Ppl were told you’re the last one here, all is gone, here’s leftovers. Help yourself
  • Results 2
    
    • Those w/ postponed pleasure ate even less than those who were allowed to eat as much candy as they want
  • Next day: Post exp questionnaire
    
    • Those who postponed gratification reported less desire to eat candy than those who refused or eaten their fill
• • When you postpone gratification -> less binge, more likely to ear moderately
• When you swear off -> what the hell effect, and binge

Question 15

L: Diets

• 2 rules to lose weight
• Results of observation some trying to lose weight
• Mann et al
  
  • Results of LT effect of dieting
  • 6 issues w/ data

Answer 15

Diets: SC of food intake

• To lose weight: Consume fewer calories than metabolically necessary (than you burn)
  
  • Increase caloric needs—Exercise
  • Reduce calories consumed—Diet
• • Diets don’t work
    
    • 60 obese women
    • B4 going on diet
      
      • There are several “weight categories”
        
        • Ideal weight
        • Goal weight (realistic)
        • Acceptable weight
        • Disappointed weight
        • Failed to reach disappointed weight
    • Results:
      
      • 50% = failed to reach disappointed weight
      • 20% = disappoint weight
      • 25% = Acceptable weight
      • 10% = goal weight
    • After dieting, ppl may reach their goal weight
    • Issue: 1-2 yr later, they regained the weight
    • Do diets really work? They can’t maintain it tho

Long-term effect of dieting (Mann et al)

• Meta analyses:
• Results 41% of dieters weighed MORE after diets (on follow-up; higher than % who kept weight off)
  
  • Nearly half of the ppl weighted more after diets
  • On follow up, more ppl gained weight than lost weight
• Issues w/ data
  
  • 1 SR Scales may not be standardized
  • 2 May lie
  • 3 Many confounds
    
    • ppl are on diff or multiple diets during the study & exercises -> not good
  • 4 Only 33% ppl were follow-up
    
    • dunno what happened to the other 67%
  • 5 No control group!
    
    • Need sample of ppl who want to lose weight and go on a diet
    • Control gp: sample of ppl who want to lose weight who don’t want to go to diet
  • 6 Publication bias!
    
    • Null results won’t be published
    • Null results: ppl go on a diet, they didn’t lose weight, or they gained weight
• These results are an optimistic take on poor data quality

Question 16

• L: 5 reasons Diets don’t work (GMRPC)

1 Bio - Genes

• Twin studies and weight heritability
• Prisoners weight study
• BMI heritability study (new)
  
  • Overweight vs normal weight

2 Metabolism

• Weight gain vs loss on MR
• Compensatory change

3 Preoccupation w/ food

• diets vs no diet & food thoughts

4 Dieters: Food = reward

• For dieters, which 2 brain part are esp active?

5 diet and cognition

• results
• potential areas affected

2 strategies

Answer 16

Why don’t diets work?
Weight is mostly genetic

• Weight of adopted children strongly resembles biological parents
  
  • Unrelated to adopted parents, despite similar (presumably) diets
  • Stunkard et al., 1986
  • Look at intrapair correlation/Heritability index
    
    • For MZ twins reared together, the weight correlation = .74 & .66(M vs F; very high)
    • For MZ twins reared apart, weight correlation = .70 (M) and .66 (F)
    • For DZ twins reared together, = .33 (M), .27 (F)
      
      • Lower correlation as they shared less genes
    • For DZ twins reared apart, = .15 (M), .25 (F)
      
      • Even lower but still meaningful
    • For strangers, the correlation = 0
• IOW: ~70% heritability in weight
• Height is 80%!
• Good news: can’t gain much weight either!**
• In a prisoner stud, where prisoners were fed over 10,000 calories per day (normal diet is 2,500 calories) for 4-6 months
• Many could not gain the 20% extra weight the researchers hoped
• Could not keep off the weigh they gained with normal diets

But…new data on BMI heritability

• Heritability is only high for those with weight in the normal range
• Heritability is way lower for those w/ weight in the obese range
• IOW: heritability is lower for those who are overweight; this suggests env factors is in play

Dieting changes metabolism

• Leibel, Rosenbaum, & Hirsch, 1995
  
  • Those ppl who lost 10-20% of body weight, their metabolism goes down
  • Those who gained weight, their metabolism goes up
  • This is the same for normal and obese ppl
• Diets result in:
  
  • Compensatory change in body energy use
    
    • If you, lose weight, body burns fewer calories, making it harder to maintain low weight
    • Gain weight, body burns more calories
    • IOW: body maintains weight at a homeostatic lv

Starvation leads to obsession with food

• 36 men in 1940s volunteered to “starve” themselves for 6 months
  
  • More like diets, 1,600 calories per day diet
• Before “diet,” men had many interests
• On “diet,” became obsessed with food
  
  • Talked incessantly about food, dreamed about it, planned to open restaurants, etc.
  • Stopped thinking about other interests, stopped attending classes, lost interest in sex
  • Became irritable
  • Showed cognitive impairments due to distractibility and irritability

Why don’t diets work?
Dieters notice food, find it more rewarding

• OBFC signals reward value you see
• The longer the ppl fasted, the more the OBFC coded the food as smth valuable/ rewarding
• IOW: ppl who didn’t eat a long time find food more rewarding
• Stice, Burger, & Yokum, 2013
  
  • Inferior Occipital sulcus: active when we perceive things
  • The longer ppl didn’t eat, the more likely the inferior occipital sulcus is active; indicating that ppl are more likely to perceive food
• IOW: they perceive food more and find food more rewarding

Dieting impacts cognition

• Green & Rogers, 1995
  
  • In general, when ppl are on a diet, they are less accurate compared to when they are not on a diet (not super strong evidence, but there’s a diff)
  • Recall memory is lower when on a diet
  • In N1Y2 group, the RT is longer when they are on a diet; but not for the other 2 groups
• Overall: Mixed support that dieting impacts cognition
• Instead of restricting foods
  
  • 1 Cultivate love of healthy foods
    
    • Don’t eat for health, eat them for taste (find healthy food that are delicious)
  • 2 Nudge yourself to eat healthy foods
    
    • Make healthy options easy to make
    • Junk food: easy to get (open a bag of chips)
    • Veggies: need preparation
      
      • Get pre-washed salads
      • Eat bb carrots instead of chips

Question 17

Lec: Religion

• Religion and lifespan + wellbeing
• Issue
• Define Religiosity
• Religion and SC
• Religion and goal selection
  
  • 4 characteristics
• Religion and goal monitoring

Answer 17

Religious people, regardless of denomination, live better & longer lives

• Caveat: above affects are small, even weak
• Does religion foster self-regulation & control?

Measurement of religiosity

• Religiosity/Religiousness: cognition, affect, & behaviour that arises from awareness of supernatural entities presumed to play important role in human affairs
• IOW: ABC related to believing in God
  
  • 1 Beliefs about existence of gods
  • 2 Frequency of engagement in religious activities (e.g., prayer, mosque attendance)
  • 3 Strength of commitment to particular religious belief system
• Note these are all highly correlated
  
  • The more you believe in God, more commitment and attendance to your religion

Religion and self-regulation (Michael McCullough & Brian Willoughby), 2009

• 1. Religiousness promotes SC
• 2. Religion influences ST by influencing ppl’s goals
     * A. Religion influences goal selection
     
     • Ex some religion prohibits drinking OH; your goal = don’t drink OH
       * B. Religion increases the importance of some goals by sanctifying them
     • Certain things are seen as holy in God’s eye
       * C. Religion reduces conflict among goals
     • God says so
     • Part of coherent belief system
       * D. Religion influences how goals internalized
     • Self-determination & internalizing goals, make goals intrinsic
• 3. Religion influences SR by promoting self-monitoring (god and others)

Question 18

L: More on religion

• 2 parts of religiosity
• Religiosity and C
  
  • self-transcendence and C
  • self-transcendence and O
• Religiosity and goal selection
  
  • 4 goals (TCSL)
  • 3 antigoals (HSF)
  • Point
• Religion and nature of goal - “sanctification”
• Religion and goal monitoring
  
  • SC and Punishing vs. forgiving god

Answer 18

Religiosity and conscientiousness

• Religiosity has 2 parts:
  
  • religion composite (being religious)
  • self-transcendence (aka believe in fate; things are uncertain)
• Among Big 5, religion composite is most strongly correlated w/ C (.22), and its trait SC (.26)
• self-transcendence is -vely correlated w/ C and SC, and most correlated w/ opens (.39)
• Note: do not confound correlation with causation!
  
  • Self-control might predict religiosity!
    
    • IOW: if you are high in SC, you may see the benefits of religion
    • It’s possible
  • Traditionalism is an aspect of C, and religions are traditions of understanding

Religiosity & goal selection

• Recall: Cybernetic model of SC
• In model, 1. We need to set a goal
  
  • Religion introduces broad goals: principles
• Religious people more likely to value:
  
  • Tradition (helpful, respectful, responsible)
  • Conformity (politeness, self-discipline, respect for elders)
  • Sociality (working to promote other’s welfare; having satisfying relationships)
  • Leadership (becoming community leader)
• Less likely to value:
  
  • Hedonism (enjoying life, pleasure, self-indulgence)
  • Stimulation (exciting life, varied life)
  • Self-direction (freedom, creativity, independence)
• IOW: religions set your goals

Religion changes relationship with goals

• Goals are sanctified become internalized and autonomous, felt as authentic
  
  • IOW, a supernatural agent helps you structure a goal that is robust, not fragile

Religiosity & monitoring system

• Religion is also involved in the conflict monitoring system
• God is watching
• HWV/ however: Belief in a punishing (vs forgiving) god might improve self-control

Question 19

L: People

• Diff ppl and goal selection
  
  • Mom, school, and solving puzzles
• Other person in the room monitoring and goals
  
  • supportive person
  • Rude person
  • Participant w/ anxiety
• SR and social support

Answer 19

Grainne Fitzsimons & Eli Finkel

• How do others affect self-regulation?
  
  • Based on the cybernetic model
    
    • Others help us select goals
    • Other people help us monitor the goals
    • Other people help us implement b
      
      • Affect exertion of control
      • Sometimes ppl support and cheer us on

Other people shape our goals
And shape implementation of goals too

• Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003
• Study 1: List goals you pursue with diff people (ex. w/ parents, friends etc)
• • Results
    
    • When w/ a friend, the goals you write are carting, helping, duties, communicate, and maintaining relation
    • When w/ mom, the goals you write include success, caring, presenting w/ ideal self
    • When w/ romantic partner, the goals you write about include caring, presenting ideal self
    • Classmate: self-presentation self, how to get self-benefit goals, and est relation
    • Point: diff ppl w/ diff roles in our life activate diff goals in our minds
    • When these goals are activated, we are more likely to act on those goals
• Study 2:
  
  • IV1: Describe mom’s looks vs describe path to school
  • IV2: a measure on - Did they list “success” goal with mom or not
    
    • When asked to describe mom’s looks, they were asked to write down what goals are activated in their mind, rs want to know if the “success” goal is activated (as seen in the chart)
  • DV: Unscramble anagrams (achievement task)
    
    • Ppl unscramble as many words they can in given amount of time
    • This is an achievement task: the more you unscramble, the higher your achievement score
  • Perhaps, if you are thinking about your mom and this activates the success goal, you may unscramble more words (achieve more)
  • This is what they found
• Results
• For those who were told to think about mom and the success goal was activated -> they solved more anagrams compared to when they didn’t list success as the goal

Other people and monitoring
When others are watching

• The mere presence of other ppl can heighten our monitoring system
• Study
  
  • 19 ppl performed flanker task under 2 conditions (within-subject)
  • Conditions
    
    • When someone was watching/evaluating
    • Control; with no on else in the room
  • Measured the ERN
  • Results: Bigger ERNs when being evaluated
• Conflict monitoring heightened by presence of others
  
  • This could help control, but also hurt it
  • If the person monitoring you is judgmental and harsh, you may ruminate that you made an error, about punishment
  • If the person monitoring has a supportive presence (loved one) (ex. romantic partner holding your hand), they can could lead to feelings of safety and help performance
  • Anxious people might become self-conscious, distracted and underperform

Other people and implementing control
social support

• People with strong social support
• More likely to achieve all goals!
  
  • But only if other truly supportive of goals
  • When other’s goals conflict with yours, other person hurts goal pursuit