Lecture 2: Personality, intelligence, and other socioeconomic outcomes

Question 1

Why is happiness important?

Answer 1

1. Achievement
   > Happier individuals more likely to graduate from university, secure jobs, attain more ‘prestigious’ work, earn more, perform better, retain their jobs and regain employment more quickly.
   > Happy people strive harder to reach their education- and career-related goals
2. Health >Happier individuals live longer, have stronger immune system function, and greater pain tolerance
3. Pro-social behaviour > happier individuals evaluate others more positively, display more trust, volunteer, and behave ethically

Question 2

Defining Happiness (Keseber & Diener 2008)

Answer 2

> as subjective experience

1. Pleasant affect– happiness is feeling good. Preponderance of positive vs. negative affect
2. Life satisfaction – happiness is an evaluation. Contentment with your state of affairs

Question 3

Define Subject Wellbeing

Answer 3

> Proxy for happiness

> Encapsulates emotionality, domain satisfactions and global life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999)

Question 4

What are emotional aspects of SWB?

Answer 4

Pleasant affect vs unpleasant affect

Question 5

What are aspects of life satisfaction in SWB?

Answer 5

satisfaction with current life, past, future and other’s views of one’s life

Question 6

What are domain satisfactions?

Answer 6

work, family, leisure, health, finances, self and one’s group

Question 7

What are the antecedents of SWB?

Answer 7

1. External influences - life events, situations, demographics, etc
2. Internal influences - Personality, temperament, etc

Question 8

How much role do external influences play in SWB?

Answer 8

> less than anticipated
In combination, external variables such as income, religion, physical health etc account for only 8-15% (R = .29-.39) of the variance in SWB

Question 9

What is some more evidence of external influences having little role in SWB?

Answer 9

Domain satisfaction across different situations (e.g., work vs leisure) is highly correlated (r > .70)

Question 10

What is the role of social processes in SWB?

Answer 10

> social processes are important, but not as important as conventional wisdom suggests (equivalent to income) (Lucas & Diener, 2008; Lucas et al., 2008)
Social processes always positive but rarely over r= .2 (which is an average effect size)

Question 11

What are typical social processes and their correlations with SWB?

Answer 11

> Marital status is correlated at .14 with SWB
Scope of social contact (incl size of social network) …r = .16
Quantity of social activity…r = .17
Number of friends…r = .13
Close friends with whom you could share a problem …r = .05 - very small
Various other variables (e.g., how often you see your close friends…r < .05)

Question 12

What is the correlation between money and SWB?

Answer 12

“The correlation between happiness and income is somewhere between .17 and .21” (Lucas et al., 2008) - average correlation, similar to the effect of relationships

Question 13

What is diminishing returns?

Answer 13

> for income and social connections
diminishing return on happiness, after certain point it tails off and don’t get as much incremental benefit for happiness.
Australian income around $50-60k

Question 14

What is the role of internal influences on SWB?

Answer 14

Together, the Big Five explain 24 to 43% of the variance in SWB

Question 15

Which of the Big Five are best predictors of SWB?

Answer 15

Extraversion and neuroticism are the strongest known predictors of SWB
>  Extraversion: r = .35 to .57
> Neuroticism: r = -.35 to -.72
> Conscientiousness: r = .27 to .51
> Agreeableness: r = .15 to .36
> Openness: r = .04 to .26

Question 16

What are the two dominant theories about why personality predicts SWB?

Answer 16

1. Instrumental Theories (indirect effect)

2. Trait x Situation Theories (conditional effect)

Question 17

What is instrumental theory of personality? Give example of specific hypothesises?

Answer 17

Personality has an instrumental effect where it impacts behaviours and situations which then impact happiness. e.g. Extraversion -> behaviour/situation -> happiness
> Social Activity Hypothesis - Extraverts are happier because they are more likely to participate in social activities (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)

Question 18

How and who tested social activity hypothesis? describe study.

Answer 18

Lucas et al. (2008) using experience sampling methods Semester long ESM Study focus on positive affect side of SWB using self-report and informant reports for E and global positive affect (PA) and moment reports and daily diary reports.
Results:
> strong relation between E and PA (r = .3 - .5) (min.3 (strong effect size))
> strong association between E and social activities (r = .29 - .27)
> moderate correlation between % time in social activities and PA (r = .26 -.22)
> E strongly related to PA and moderately related to social activities but social activities do not explain the relationship between E and PA (only helping activity was an indirect effect)
> Both I and E have more positive affect when in social activity cf. alone (but E always more positive affect regardless of whether alone or with friends than I)

Question 19

What are the conclusions regarding instrumental theory of personality and SWB?

Answer 19

> Even after accounting for multiple social activities, Extraversion directly predicts positive affect (key component of SWB)
Extraverts are happier than introverts…
– when living with others or living alone
– when working in social/nonsocial jobs, etc
(Diener et al., 1999)

Question 20

what is Trait x Situation Theories (conditional effect) theory of personality and SWB?

Answer 20

> There is some situational effect to which E respond more strongly than I —> e.g., Extraversion x situation –> happiness
If extraverts respond more strongly to reward, they may experience more positive affective ‘highs’ - higher highs when something good happens to them
Similarly, neuroticism and reactivity to threat/punishment (Gray, 1987)…

Question 21

What is one study which tested the conditional effect theory of personality and SWB?

Answer 21

(Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991)
> Hypo: extraverts are more susceptible to positive affect, neurotics are more susceptible to negative affect
> Design: Mood induction procedure through guided imagery with either positive, neutral or negative situations
> Results: In negative conditions both E & I are similar on PA, however in positive conditions E get more PA than I.
> In positive conditions both N and non-N are same, however in negative condition N get more negative affect than non-N.

Question 22

What is the general conclusion on theories of personality and SWB?

Answer 22

1. Extraversion and neuroticism are the strongest known predictors of happiness/SWB
2. In general, instrumental processes (e.g., via socialisation) have not explained these effects
3. Conditional processes have drawn more support - E.g., affective reactivity: Extraversion and neuroticism may dispose people to react positively/negatively

Question 23

What is the link between intelligence (g) and happiness?

Answer 23

Judge et al. (2010) two paths:

a. Educational attainment -> work success -> ‘economic wellbeing’ (The correlation between happiness and income is somewhere between .17 and .21” (Lucas et al., 2008))
b. Health-related behaviours -> actual health -> perceived health (perceived health is a stronger predictor of longevity than more objective measures (e.g., Ganz, et al., 1991; Rumsfeld et al., 1999))

Question 24

Describe Judge et at (2010) study

Answer 24

Hypo: g associated with SWB through economic well-being and better perceived health
Design: 10 yr longitudinal study with 4 assessments
Results:
> g directly predicts educational attainment, unhealthy behaviour (use of alcohol/tobacco), occupational prestige and economic well-being (e.g., regular saving) (and g also indirectly predicts economic well-being through these things i.e. educational attainment etc)
> Unhealthy behaviour and occupational prestige predicts health, which then influences perceived health
> Economic wellbeing and perceived health influences SWB
> after accounting for childhood SES

Question 25

What is the conclusion between intelligence (g) and SWB?

Answer 25

1. Link between intelligence and happiness suggestive of instrumental processes (indirect effects on SWB):
   a. Via educational/work success
   b. Via health behaviours and actual/perceived health
2. Further research needed…

Question 26

What is the relationship between health and SWB?

Answer 26

> Health is a major antecedent and consequence of SWB…bidirectional relationship
Actual health has a modest impact on SWB but perceived health has a moderate impact (r = .30-.40)
Happiness known to be a robust predictor of health and longevity e.g. positivity of nun’s diaries - top quartile lived 10 years longer on av (Danner et al., 2001)

Question 27

What is the relationship between g and health/longevity?

Answer 27

Scottish Mental Survey 1932: (Gottfredson & Deary, 2004) - g at age 11 predicted survival at age 76 with lower scores (-1SD) predicting 29% decreased likelihood of being alive - every SD drop will drop your likelihood of being alive by 30%
> This rate increased as a function of adult social class and deprivation - SES did not explain the relationship

Question 28

Why does intelligence predict longevity?

Answer 28

i. The ‘archaeological record’: g as an indicator of ‘biological integrity’?
> g and risk of disease are both associated with reduced fetal development and birth weight
> But effect of g on mortality is independent of this (Leon et al. 2009)
ii. Socioeconomic resources?
> g predicts economic well-being via educational and occupational success (high g predicts economic wellbeing), high SES associated with longevity
> But g consistently predicts later-life morbidity and mortality after controlling for SES.
iii. Risky behaviours and healthy environments? - most supported

Question 29

How is g associated with risky behaviours?

Answer 29

Australian Veterans Health Studies: (O’Toole & Stankov, 1992)
Results:
> Controlling for various factors (e.g., education and employment), each additional IQ point predicted (M=100, SD = 15) a 1% decreased in risk of non-combat death at age 40 - alive at age 40
> Major cause of death was car accidents – the rate of which doubled then trebled at successively lower IQ brackets (100-115; 85-100; 80-85)

Question 30

How is g associated with health behaviours?

Answer 30

a) Health-enhancing mental resources? Recall study by Judge et al. 2010 - g associated with health related behaviours because they are better at picking things up related to their health
> In SMS1932: higher IQ (1SD) predicted a 33% increase in quitting smoking - people born in 1920s most people smoking but as knowledge of risk increases people quit
b) ‘Health Literacy’ (Williams et al., 1995)
> 26% of patients unable to understand appointment slip
> 42% unable to understand directions for taking medicine
> health literacy cannot be assumed

Question 31

Can intelligence predict health literacy? Define study

Answer 31

(Murray, Johnson, Wolf, & Deary, 2011)
Design: Health literacy in a subset (N= 304) of the SMS1932 sample
IVs: ability to Read and pronounce common medical words (incl. body parts and illnesses), Comprehension of sets of medical directions, Understanding of nutritional information labels
Results:
> g assessed at age 11 predicted all health literacy measures at age 70 rs = up to .53!
> Remained a significant predictor after controlling for personality, education, SES, and ‘cognitive change’ (change in g over 69 years)

Question 32

What is the link between C and longevity? Define study

Answer 32

Martin et al., 2007
Design:
> Conscientiousness in childhood (1920s) estimated from parent and teacher reports
> Conscientiousness in adulthood assessed at two time points (1940 and 1950)
Results:
> Adult conscientiousness predicted probability of death, b = -.20, p < .001
> After controlling for alcohol use, smoking, BMI, education and metal health, conscientiousness was no longer a significant predictor, b = -.10, ns
> But C associated with smoking r = -.20 [males] and r = -.16 [females]

Question 33

How is C linked with longevity?

Answer 33

1. Conscientiousness & Health / Risky Behaviours: (Bogg & Roberts, 2004)
   > less alcohol use, drug use, unhealthy eating, risky driving, risky sexual behaviours, aggression
2. Conscientiousness – health promoting behaviours…
   > Odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years:
   - Conscientiousness: +ve predictor
   - Extraversion, openness: -ve predictors
   - Neuroticism: curvilinear predictor!

Question 34

What are the change in C over time and how are they associated with health? Cite studies

Answer 34

> (Roberts et al., 2006) C rises quite steadily over the lifespan
(Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson, & Roberts, 2012) - 3 year longitudinal study:
Results:
- C associated with preventative health behaviours overall health at both time points
- Changes in C associated with changes in preventative health behaviours and overall health
- Changes in preventative health behaviours mediated the association between changes in C and changes in overall health i.e. C –> health behavs –> health

Question 35

What are the personality traits associated with disease?

Answer 35

> Ag has a preventative role response to stressors:
1) Reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress
2) Increased pain tolerance
Higher N increase susceptibility to depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Question 36

Can we tailor health promotion to match people’s personalities?

Answer 36

‘Personalised persuasion’ Hirsh, Kang, and Bodenhausen (2012):
> Marketing study: different messages to capture motivational concerns associated with personality…e.g. E = emphasis on fun and excitement
> Advertisements were evaluated more positively the more they cohered with participants’ dispositional motives.