midterm Flashcards
intelligence (standard definition + Boring’s definition + its cons)
- hypothetical concept this is hard to define
- means different things to different people
- most would agree that there is a range of expression of intelligence
EDWARD BORING’S DEFINITION: “Intelligence is whatever intelligence measures”
- “we can only make inferences about intelligence based on how we measure it in a test or ask”
EDWARD BORING’S DEFINITION DOESN’T TELL US:
- why some people are ‘smarter’ than others
- whether some people truly are ‘smarter’ than others in general or specific ways
- why there is an observed range of individual differences in intelligence
two perspectives of approaching intelligence
PSYCHOMETRIC:
- focused on measuring/testing intelligence- the “what”
- Francis Galton
- Alfred Binet
- Charles Spearman
EXPANDED MODELS:
- focused on idea of multiple intelligences (no testing)
- non-traditional
- Louis Thurstone
- Raymond Cattell
- Robert Sternberg
- Howard Gardener
Francis Galton + intelligence measuring + results of his tests
FRANCIS GALTON
- believed intelligence is the by-product of sensory capacity
… people with superior sensory capacities acquire more knowledge than others
- believed that intelligence was based on our central nervous system and how fast we process things (focused on speed of processing and mental capacity)
- believed that intelligence was inherited***
… he created the foundation for eugenics
FRANCIS GALTON’S TESTING:
- first to attempt systematic “mental test” (both physical and sensory tests)
- created sensory and physical tests and measured:
- speed of processing information**
- grip strength
- size of your head
- ability to detect subtle differences (discriminating between different sounds/pitches e.g.)
RESULTS:
- people’s scores were poor predictors of academic success
Alfred Binet (& Theodore Simon) + intelligence measuring
ALFRED BINET
- first to develop the INTELLIGENCE TEST: tool designed to measure overall thinking ability
- captured “higher mental processes” (i.e. verbal reasoning and spatial ability)
- focused on intelligence as ABSTRACT THINKING: the ability to reason and problem solve and understand hypothetical concepts
- believed intelligence is goal-oriented*
- believed intelligence explains our ability to:
- solve problems and direct our own thinking
- learn new things from experience
- adapt* to varying situations
Charles Spearman + intelligence + factor analysis + concept of “g” and “s”
CHARLES SPEARMAN
- believed intelligence is something general
- developed a statistical procedure called FACTOR ANALYSIS: study of factors that account for individual correlations (that were found on Binet’s intelligence test, showing that when people got one thing right, they were more likely to get other things rights)
- examines responses to a large number of items
- he focused on discovering the underlying factor accounting for people’s results on intelligence tests
“G” (GENERAL INTELLIGENCE):
- hypothetical factor that accounts for overall differences in intellect among people (by accounting for differences in performance on an intelligence test from one person to the next)
- based on items that are correlated
- represents GENERAL (underlying factor of) intelligence that accounts across seemingly different tasks
- g is a very influential concept (backed by statistical discoveries of evidence for general underlying factor of intelligence)
- didn’t know what produces individual differences in g
- for Spearman, g corresponds to the strength of our mental engines- some simply have more of that strength, explaining their higher intelligence
- e.g. vocabulary scores might be correlated with math/spatial abilities, despite them being theoretically distinct mental abilities
“S” (SPECIFIC RESIDUALS):
- items not explained by “g”/general intelligence
- s reflects special talent/skill, whereas g reflects our general smarts when we perform well on a given task*
- e.g. solving spatial tasks like block puzzles: some of our performance is explained by general problem solving ability and the rest is explained by abilities specific to tests of objects and their orientation in space (i.e. spatial skill) (someone really smart might flunk this ‘test’ because they lack skill for spatial problems)
Louis Thurstone + multi-faced intelligence/seven primary mental abilities
LOUIS THURSTONE:
- found that some intelligence test items relate more highly to each other than do other items
… These items form clumps corresponding to different intellectual capacities
- expands upon Spearman’s theory
- gradual narrowing of abilities
PRIMARY MENTAL ABILITIES:
- 1) verbal comprehension
- 2) verbal fluency
- 3) perceptual speed
- 4) inductive reasoning
- 5) spatial ability
- 6) numerical ability
- 7) memory
Raymond Cattell + crystalized/fluid intelligence
RAYMOND CATTELL:
- “expanded” models of intelligence
- argued that intelligence is a mixture of two related but somewhat different capacities/forms
CRYSTALLIZED INTELLIGENCE: accumulated knowledge of the world , acquired over time
- culture bound
- lasting knowledge in long-term memory
- e.g. knowing 2x4=8
FLUID INTELLIGENCE: ability to learn new ways of problem solving
- not culture bound
- more likely to decline with age
- more highly related to g (may best capture the power of the ‘mental engine’)
- e.g. solving a puzzle we’ve never seen before
both intelligences interact
- e.g. you cannot solve a problem without crystalized intelligence
Robert Sternberg + intelligence + Triarchic theory
ROBERT STERNBERG:
- argued theres more to intelligence than g
- argued that intelligence is CONTEXT dependent
- TRIARCHIC THEORY: poses three distinct types of intelligence
1) Analytical intelligence
- ability to reason
- closely related to g
2) Creative intelligence
- ability to apply knowledge to new tasks- coming up with effective solutions to problems
- Divergent thinking - multiple solutions to a problem/thinking “outside the box”
- Convergent thinking - single best solution to a problem
- … is it really independent of g though?
3) Practical intelligence
- ability to solve problems that involve the social world- “street smarts”
- understanding one’s own strengths and weaknesses
- is it really independent of g? maybe its just a subtype of g
Howard Gardner + multiple intelligences + where he derived this perspective + cons
HOWARD GARDENER:
- argued theres more to intelligence than g
- argued that there are entirely different domains of intellectual skills
- certain mental abilities are separate intelligences
- i.e. intelligence is SPECIFIC, not general
- THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: idea that people vary in the types of intelligences at which they excel
1) Linguistic
2) Spatial
3) Logico-mathematical
4) Musical
5) Bodily-kinesthetic
6) Interpersonal
7) Intrapersonal
8) Naturalistic
9) Spirtual/existential
WHERE HE DERIVED THIS PERSPECTIVE:
1) Clinical evidence
- I. Brain damage and isolated impact on one cognitive skill but not another
- II. Language, musical, math, and spatial abilities show this isolation
2) Exceptionalities- Prodigies and savants
- Savant: exceptional ability in one domain alongside intellectual disability
- Prodigy: usually have normal range intelligence in most domains, except for one or two
- Music and math are most frequent for the two
- Savants and prodigies are exceptional examples of what is seen in the rest of the population (only to a lesser extent)
CONS
- However, its unclear why certain abilities classify as intelligences, while others don’t (e.g. humour intelligence, romantic intelligence, memory intelligence)
- Theres no good evidence that these intelligences are truly independent and meet the criteria (they could all just be manifestations of g)
- Virtually impossible to falsify
- Misapplication by educational systems **
- Multiple intelligences theory and “Learning Styles” get mixed up (they are not the same)
- People will often adapt their own strategies to fit with their beliefs about their so called “LS” (may create a stronger feeling of efficacy)
…. But empirical studies demonstrate no benefit of such tailoring - Some tasks and content are inherently more suited to one linguistic/verbalizing vs another type of processing (task dependency, not LS)
Stanford-Binet IQ test
STANFORD-BINET IQ TEST: intelligence test devised to identify children who needed remedial education
- Consists of testing vocabulary, memory for pictures, naming familiar objects, repeating sentences, and following commands
IQ definition + calculating IQ
INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT: an index of general intelligence that “relates to knowledge acquisition in diverse settings”
- Quantifying differences among people in their intelligence
Two concepts:
1. Chronological Age (CA): a child’s biological age
2. Mental Age (MA): level of age-graded problems that child can solve (child’s intellectual performance)
FORMULA
IQ = (MA / CA) * 100
- Stern’s contribution (intelligence is best represented as ratio)
- E.g. an 8-year-old child with a mental age of 10 ((10 / 8) * 100 = 125)
- This formula doesn’t work for adults
- Around 16, mental age scores start to level off
This formula breaks down post-adolescence (our scores on IQ tests after 16 dont increase much)
IQ Terman’s contribution- norms
NORMS: baseline IQ scores in the general population for adults in each age category
DEVIATION IQ: statistics and a norm we use in adults
- An expression of each individual’s IQ relative to their same-aged peers
- Where your score falls in comparison to the average score of everyone else in your age category
distribution of IQ scores- the bell curve + intellectual disability
BELL CURVE: distribution of scores in which the bulk of the scores fall toward the middle, where scores on the ends are statistically rare
- 95% of the population falls within 70-130 IQ
- There are two ends of the curve– intellectual disability and genius
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: a condition defined by three criteria– not just IQ:
1) Onset in childhood
2) IQ below 70
3) Inadequate adaptive functioning (inability to engage in daily functioning)
biological bases of intelligence (correlations)- brain activity and intelligence correlation (neural efficiency hypothesis)
Measured intelligence shows correlations
- Brain size itself isn’t relevant and doesn’t correlate with measured intelligence within species
- Rather, the density and volume of neurons in certain areas (frontal, pre-frontal, parietal) does show a modest correlation of 0.3 - 0.4
- i.e. The more volume, the more density, the more intelligence/neural-connections
Person who scores higher on intelligence test shows lower brain activity
- NEURAL EFFICIENCY HYPOTHESIS: less overall brain activity on cognitive tasks because they show more efficient processing of information
- Higher speed of processing (faster reaction times with solving tasks/making decisions)
- Long maturation of cortex (intelligent brains take longer to mature)
heritability, genes, and the environment
HERITABILITY: the degree to which the trait in question is due to genetic variations within the studied population
- The degree to which the variations in the bell curve are due to genetic variations in that study proclamation
Your genes represent your potential
- Environmental opportunities must be present for your full potential to be realized
the premise of behaviour genetics research KINSHIP DATA- twin studies, adoption studies, family studies
KINSHIP DATA begins with premise that both genes and environment contribute to traits
kinship studies- twin studies
TWIN STUDIES: compare correlations in a trait in identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins
- Identical twins share twice as many of their genes as fraternal twins, making the correlations comparable and sugegsting genetic influence on a trait
- MZ: share 100% genes, DZ: share 50% genes
- If genetics… expect MZ twins to be more similar on IQ than DZ twins
- r= .7-.8 for MZ : 3-.4 for DZ
MZ twins reared apart show higher concordance (72) than DZ and non-twin siblings reared together (identical twins who are separated showed highest concordance of intelligence)
The twin findings tell us that IQ is influenced by genetic factors, but they don tell us which genes are relevant to intelligence
- Its clear that intelligence isn’t due to only one gene, but rather an enormous number of genes
The twin findings also show us that environmental influences also play a role (given that identical twins share 100% of their genes, they would correlate 1.0 if genetic influences alone were operative, but they correlate less than 1.0)
PROS:
- Represent a unique subset of population that shares an in utero environment
- 100% genes (MZ twins) vs 50% genes (DZ)
- A great quasi experiment
KINSHIP STUDIES- adoption studies
ADOPTION STUDIES: Look at r (correlation) between adopted child’s IQ and scores of the adoptive vs biological parents
- Allow us to separate environmental factors from genetic effects on IQ because adopted children are raised by parents with whom they share an environment but not genes
- If genetics, r (child-biological parent) > r (child-adoptive parent)
- You’d expect that the intelligence test scores are similar to their biological parents
Adoption studies tend to show that IQs of adopted children tend to be similar to their biological parents (Same for other traits, such as body mass)
- This offers evidence of genetic influence
Adoption studies also establish a clear contribution of the environment to IQ
- Adopted children who come frome extremely deprived environments show an increase in IQ when adopted into homes with enriched environments
r (child-biological parent) increases as children get older
KINSHIP STUDIES- family studies
FAMILY STUDIES: determine the extent to which a trait “runs” in intact families (those in which all family members live in the same home)
- “Target” individual’s trait assessed, also close and distant relatives
Galton’s studies confirmed that IQ runs in families
Examine IQ scores for siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc.
- Biological parents: r = above 0.4
- Siblings: r = 0.45
- Cousins: r = 0.15
… But note that it should be around the same as DZ twins
GE CORR (families tend to live close by, even when they dont select environments that are similar)
Galton concluded that there’s a genetic basis to intellectual greatness
- But, he didn’t take into account environmental factors: when a trait runs in families, we don’t know whether it’s for genetic reasons, environmental reasons, or both
cautions around heritability (kinship studies)
h (heritability) does not provide you with an individual analysis of your IQ
… Its a stat that relates to the research sample that provided that data; we can only make inferences about the sample from which it was drawn
A trait with a high h does not imply unmalleability
- High h does not mean that the trait is unresponsive to environmental changes
- Even identical twins raised apart do not show exactly the same outcomes
- Environments will always matter
Heritability estimates vary by type of kinship study design; often, the strongest estimates come from twin studies
- Kinship studies are based on unique samples, so we should use caution when attempting to generalize results– We cant say they apply to everybody
Heritability estimates change depending on the population that is studied
- E.g. high socioeconomic status, low socioeconomic status
bottom line about (IQ) heritability
- IQ heritability is about 50% (sometimes found to be higher– up to 70%)
- IQ heritability estimates are higher in higher SES environments and lower in lower SES environments
- Leaves lots of room for environmental influences
grwoth vs fixed minset … learning vs performance goals - carol dweck
By Carol Dweck
GROWTH MINDSET: a belief that our abilities can change/develop
- Tend to take more academic risks and persist after failing
- Incramental theorist holds this mindset
LEARNING GOALS: learner engages in situations in which they might be challenged
“POSITIVE EFFORT BELIEFS”: “effort is a good thing, as it helps grow my ability/talent”
MASTERY ORIENTED RESPONSE TO SETBACKS: induce a strategy-focus
- More resilient kinds of attributions
FIXED MINDSET: a belief that our abilities are unchangeable
- Tend to take fewer academic risks, and feel discouraged when failingXE
- entity theorists holds this mindset
PERFORMANCE GOALS: learner avoids situations in which they might possibly be challenged
- Reveals incompetence/lacking ability
“NEGATIVE EFFORT BELIEFS”: effort= indication of attempt to compensate for low/lower ability than others
- “If I have to work really hard, or put effort, then it may reveal a lack of ability/natural talent”
HELPLESS ATTRIBUTIONS: in reaction to setbacks, failures, or challenges
- “I’m not intelligent/smart enough”
achievement theory- carol dweck
Carol Dweck wanted to find out:
- Why do students with mostly similar abilities make different kinds of attributions?
- Why do students with mostly similar abilities make different responses to failures?
She suggested that the difference is in the student’s focus: performance vs learning goals
mindset theory - carol dweck
- Mindsets are not categorical (though we often contrast fixed vs growth)
The more appropriate questions, then, are:
- “To what degree do i believe that my abilities, like intelligence, are set in stone?”
“- To what degree do i believe that my abilities can be changed?”
Dweck asserts that we can shift our location on the continuum at different times in our lives
culture and mindset
“Having a fixed mindset and a fear of failure is potentially problematic (predictor of psychological distress)”
- Recent large-scale data indicate that China and Czech Republic had lowest correlations between GM and test scores
- Students in mainland China showed the strongest correlation (of all nations) with a fear of failure
Culture influences the socialization of mindsets
Culture influences individual internalization of those attempts at socialization
- E.g. Western culture: students socialized that learning and academic pursuits should be based on your own interests
- E.g. East Asia (and other culture): students socialized to focus on excellence
In cultures like East Asia, in spite of effort (i.e. understanding the value of effort), growth mindset about intelligence is less likely to thrive
- E.g. students can use effort, but for different reasons
grit + its two components + its correlations
There are two components to grit:
1) Passion– are you genuinely interested in your long term goals?
2) Perseverance– working continuously toward your long term goals
- Stamina is an important part of grit
- Are you continuously striving and motivated by the content/area of learning over the years, despite setbacks, failures, or plateaus in performance?
Grit is correlated to..
- Feelings of academic achievement and motivation
- Academic productivity
- Account of hours spent studying
- Pursuit of post-graduate training
- Student retention in programs
- Academic perseverance
- Psychological wellbeing
- Commitment to a purpose
- Self-efficacy (belief in your capacity to do the task)
- Age (older people/students report higher grit)
- Gender (females report higher grit)
Resilience is a part of grit
- Students high on grit also report high resilience
Self-control is a part of grit
- The ability to resist distractions and stay focused is important in perseverance
- Good time management is a key part of self-regulation for students – i.e. self-discipline
Self-awareness is part of grit
- Gritty students have strong self-awareness of past challenges and successes
- Allows them to understand strengths/weaknesses and apply them to their advantage in the future
bottom line about grit
Grit is not inborn!
Grit increases as we get older due to our positive/negative experiences
- Grit involves features that are discoverable and learnabli
- E.g. you can discover interests
- E.g. you can learn how to implement stronger time management (a feature of perseverance)
Growth mindset is positively and strongly correlated with grit
Students who core high on grit are more likely to possess a growth-mindset
developmental psychology
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: study of how behaviour changes over the life span
- an academic discipline
- impacted by both nature and nurture
child development
CHILD DEVELOPMENT: a subdiscipline that focuses on changes during infancy and childhood
… What is the nurture of these changes?
two different concepts of cognitive development- domains of development + stage
DOMAINS OF DEVELOPMENT: areas within which people change over time
- Social-emotional/psychosocial domain
- Physical domain
- Cognitive domain
- Researchers further specialize their knowledge and applications within each domain
STAGE: a period of time in a child’s life when they are able to:
- Achieve certain milestones
- Understand certain concepts
- But … not other concepts and milestones
- “Does growth occur in abrupt steps or is it gradual?”
- Links up to a core issue in this academic discipline
- basically stage-like changes in understanding (spurts in knowledge followed by periods of stability, or continuous)
child development stages
1) Prenatal (conception-birth)
2) Infancy (birth-1)
3) Toddlerhood (→ 2/3)
4) Early childhood (2-6/7)
5) Middle childhood (6.7→11*)
6) Adolescence (→ 18*)
- Variations in timing due to onset of pubertal timing
human development is…. bi-directional
…. Bi-directional (two-way influence)
Try to avoid thinking about only uni-directional (one-way influence)
- E.g. parental behaviour ←→ child behaviour
avoid post-hoc fallacy
POST-HOC FALLACY: Assuming that because A comes before B, A causes B
- It’s easy to assume that things that occur ealy in development cause things that come later
- E.g. child who used to be shy is now engineer … we cant say that being shy → interest in engineering
- E.g. a couple gets divorced when their child is an infant; within a few months, child is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) … We cant say that the divorce → autism spectrum disorder
Bronfenbrenner+ ecological model
BRONFENBRENNER: suggested multiple contexts for development
- e.g. A parent with flexible work hours so they don’t have to enrol their child in school aftercare (the child’s development is influenced by the parent’s workplace policies, even thought he child is not directly invovled in that setting)
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM THEORY: child is influenced by five ecological forces (environment/nurture plays a big role)
1) MICROSYSTEM: person’s immediate surroundings (e.g. settings, relationships, activities, family, friends, background of growing up poor) – affect child directly
2) MESOSYSTEM: interconnections among the different microsystems/people around the child (e.g. parents with teachers, teachers with peers)
3) EXOSYSTEM: Settings that don’t directly involve the child but still affect their experience (e.g. A parent with a flexible work hours so they don’t have to enrol their child in school aftercare, relationship of father with boss, peers with parents, teacher with principal)
4) MACROSYSTEM: religion, values, norms, and goals that influences the larger cultural/subcultural contexts (e.g. geographical location, ethnicity)
5) CHRONOSYSTEM: changes in the person/environment that occur over time; these changes influence the course of development (e.g. at 5 years old, parents divorce and child is traumatized, but five years later they come to terms with it)
other notable theories in addition to Bronfenbrenners’
Operant learning theory
Social-learning theory
cognitive/information processing perspective
Psychosocial theory (Eriskon)
Freud’s psychosexual theory
Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory
Humanistic
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
- A needs-based theory rooted in humanistic perspective/Maslow
- “Whats the core set of things that human beings need?”
self-determination theory- the basics + the role of social environments (need)
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY: Humans have three basic needs that need to be fulfilled:
1) Autonomy
2) Competence
3) Relatedness
Human beings….
- Are inherently oriented toward growth
- Are not born damaged or flawed
- Needs are innate structures that promote psychology well-being
Humans have tendencies toward fulfillment of these psychological needs, but environmental supports are necessary
The role of social environments:
- 1) Need supportive (socializing agent is aware and fosters person’s needs)
- 2) Need depriving (socializing agent is indifferent to person’s needs)
- 3) Need thwarting (socializing agent is “antagonistic” toward person’s needs)
need frustration (need substitute + compensatory behaviours + rigid behaviours + undercontrolled behaviours)
NEED FRUSTRATION: when basic psychological needs are thwarted within social contexts
Low need satisfaction does not necessarily involve need frustration, but need frustration by definition involves low need satisfaction
- E.g. one feels little relatedness to colleagues at work making it less exciting to go to work (low need satisfaction), vs one is actively excluded by co-wrokers and suffer from depression (need frustration)
- E.g. plant doesnt get enough sunshine and water so it dies over time (low need satisfaction), vs plant gets salt thrown on them and will wither more quickly (need frustration)
Need frustration can be quite harmful, and the origins of disturbed behaviour
There are ways to cope with need frustration:
- Can develop NEED SUBSTITUTE (e.g. extrinsic goals)
- Can develop COMPENSATORY BEHAVIOURS (e.g. rigid behaviours, undercontrol)
- RIGID BEHAVIOURS: perfectionism, self-criticism to the detriment of health/what would create wellness
- UNDERCONTROLLED BHEAVIOUR: not wanting to exert self-control over certain behaviours
developmental research design- longitudinal design (+ cons) + cross-sectional design (+ cohorts) + sequential design
LONGITUDINAL DESIGN: studying the same group of people repeatedly as they mature
- Always repeat measures (individuals are tested multiple times)
- Tracks the development of individuals over time (age changes) and looks at the stability of behaviour
- A good alternative to cross-sectional design
Cons:
- SELECTIVE ATTRITION (participants dropping out of the study before it’s completed) – leads to a biased sample
- Test-wise/practice effects
- Costly and time-consuming
CROSS-SECTIONAL DESIGN: studying people of different ages at the same point in time
- Allows you to talk about age difference (not changes!)
- Snapshot of each person at a single age
Cons- cohort effects:
- COHORT EFFECTS: somewhat problematic in CS design– sets of people who lived during one time period can differ in some systematic way from sets of people who lived during a different period of time– it depends on the span
- Your CS design may detect differences between the age groups, but these differences are actually due to cultural or historical differences during growth, and not due to true developmental change
- Could be beneficial to use when comparing the performance of e.g. 2-year-olds with 4-year-olds
- there is no concern over practice effects
SEQUENTIAL (LONGITUDINAL-SEQUENTIAL) DESIGN: groups of people of different age groups are studied repeatedly over time
- Combines features of both LGT and CS
- Can check for cohort effects (see if age differences match up to age changes found)
- Confidence in age related changes
- More time-efficient than traditional longitudinal study
gene expression
Some genes regulate the timing of development
Environments influence how genes function
- E.g. child may have genes for being tall as an adult; but if environmental supports are not present…?
GENE EXPRESSION: activation or deactivation of genes in response to environmental triggers
- Having genes that predispose us to certain traits doesn’t make the activation of those traits automatic
- Environmental experiences can trigger/“turn on” certain genes
- E.g. child with genes that predisposes them to anxiety may never become anxious until a highly stressful event triggers these genes to become active
- Genes are in a constant state of fluctuation between on and off– Epigenetics
Experience-expectant growth vs experience-dependent growth
EXPERIENCE-EXPECTANT-GROWTH: all brains require certain stimuli/experiences to develop typically
- We all need visual and linguistic input during infancy and beyond for those regions (and functions) to develop
- E.g. a baby whose mother sings and reads stories to them
EXPERIENCE-DEPENDENT-GROWTH: only some brains get these experiences
- Not restricted to early infancy, but contributes to lifelong learning
- Shapes neural circuits
Genes and environment are not easily untangled
- They often interact and correlate
Experience-expectant and experience-dependent growth are a type of Gene-Environment interaction
gene-environment correlation + nature via nurture + passive correlation vs active correlation
GENE-ENVIRONMENT CORRELATION: the effects of genes depend on the environment in which they are expressed, and vice versa
- Your environment supports the manifestation of that trait
- E.g. children with both the low MAO gene and a history of maltreatment were at heightened risk for antisocial behaviours
NATURE VIA NURTUTE: tendency of individuals with certain genetic predisposition to seek out/create environments that permit the expression of those predispositions
- Genetic predispostions can drive us to create certain environments that influence our behaviour– this leads to the mistaken appearance of a pure effect of nature
- I.e. You have the certain genetic predisposition and experiences that directly support that trait
- Nature can impact what kind of environment children experience
- E.g. highly fearful children seek out environments that protect them from their anxieties (the environment is a consequence of their genetic predisposition)
PASSIVE CORRELATION: parents who both are high achievers, high IQ enroll their child in many academic-related activities, camps, best schools, etc.
- Parent provides child with environment that enforces their risk or prediscposition
ACTIVE CORRELATION: as we get older, we tend to seek out environments that reinforce our genetic tendencies
- Child seeks out environments that will enforce their genetic-based tendencies
gene-environment interaction
GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION: Different genetic makeups respond to the same environment/risk in different ways
- The impact of genes on behaviour depends on the environment in which the behaviour develops
Your genotype increases your susceptibility to environmental risks
- E.g. DATgene X mom smoker → increased risk of ADHD
- E.g. NAT2 genes X cigaratte smoke → increased risk of bladder cancer
- E.g. SERT gene (5-HTTLPR) X emotional abuse → increased risk of anxiety disorders
genetic, shared, and nonshared factors (of people in the same household)
GENETIC FACTORS: genes from our biological parents
SHARED ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: experiences that are shared by people living in same household
- Studies show that shared factors matter more than environment
- E.g. everyone eats the same nutritious meals
NONSHARED ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: experiences that are not shared by people living in the same household
- E.g. parents differential treatment, peers
jean piaget + his background + view on children’s cognitive growth
JEAN PIAGET
- Started off as a zoologist
- studied “Genetic epistemology”: Origins in knowledge and how we develop knowledge
- Worked in Alfred Binet’s intelligence lab developing a measure of childhood intelligence
- He didn’t like the right vs wrong approach – what about the children who got the intelligence questions wrong?
- Errors made by children of certain ages were very similar– younger childrens vs older childrens brains are fundamentally different
- Viewed children as scientists and explorers
- Emphasized the “active” perspective of learner
- “CONSTRUCTIVIST”: Child is actively constructing their knowledge and interpreting
- Children build their knowledge from experience through schemas
jean piaget + Shemas
- Children build their knowledge from experience through schemas
SCHEME/SCHEMA :a “mental model” gained from experience
- Organize and interpret our experiences to understand the world (e.g. how to order at a restaurant, how your professor looks)
- Our early schemes are our reflexes
- Cognitive growth happens when we refine our schemes
- Organize our schemes or adapt to the environment to form new schemes
jean piaget + two forms of adaptation (assimilation and accomodation)
ASSIMILATION: child uses current/existing schema to interpret new experience
- What is interpreted is simplified and put into an existing category
- Growing existing schemes
- E.g. child seeing statue of swan and saying ‘quack quack’ – they reocgnize it as similar to a scheme they have for birds/ducks
- E.g. dog chewing on a shoe instead of a bone
ACCOMODATION: child has to adjust old schema to meet the demands of the new experience
- Accommodating means growing a lot cognitively
- E.g. child calling a meerkat a chihuahua, and mother correcting her saying it’s a meerkat – this creates a new schema for meerkats
- E.g. child creating a new schema for drinking from straws by learning they can’t rely on their schema for sippy cups (or else they’ll spill it by bending backward)
piaget’s four stages of development list
PIAGET CLAIMS YOU CANNOT SKIP STAGES
1) SENSORIMOTOR STAGE (0-2 years)
2) PRE-OPERATIONAL STAGE (2-7 years)
3) CONCRETE STAGE (7-11 years)
4) FORMAL OPERATIONS STAGE (11-adulthood)
piaget’s four stages of development- first stage (object permeance + A not B task)
1) SENSORIMOTOR STAGE (0-2 years)
- no thoughts beyond immediate physical experiences
- Infants uses behavioural (motor) and sensory schemes to explore the world
- Intelligence is suggested through their motor and sensory activity
OBJECT PERMEANCE: the understanding that objects exist even when they can no longer be detected by the senses
- The child undertsanding that even though they cant see the object, it still exists
- Reflects the ability to form mental representations
… Piaget proposes that babies 1-4 months old have no concept of object permanence
- If you’re playing with a toy and you take it away, they’re unfazed– out of sight, out of mind
Piaget’s “A-Not-B Task”: Babies continue to look for objects in the place where they found it last
-Object permanence is not fully formed, according to Piaget
- Infant points to the rewarding location (i.e. the first spot)
- They might not have the strategies to look in the correct location– maybe theyre searching somewhere other than where they’re actually looking
So, infants begin their life by reflexive intelligence and end it by being able to form mental representations through object permanence
piaget’s four stages of development- second stage (and its limitations)
2) PRE-OPERATIONAL STAGE (2-7 years)
- able to think beyond the here and now, but egocentric and unable to perform mental transformations
- Can use symbolic schemes (e.g. language)
Three limitations in this stage: egocentrism, centration, and irreversibility…
EGOCENTRISM:
- Have trouble seeing the world from a perspective that isn’t theirs
- Have trouble focusing on multiple tasks at once
CONSERVATION TASKS + CENTRATION:
- test the child’s understanding that physical properties like number and mass are ‘conserved’ even if they change in appearance
- The understanding that the physical properties of an object remain the same despite superficial changes in appearance
- E.g. pouring 50ml of water into a tall glass vs a wider short glass
CENTRATION:
- Pre-operational children “fail” conservation tasks because of CENTRATION: they are “centred”/focused on one aspect and ignore others
IRREVERSIBILITY: their ability to think about mental processes is limited– they have trouble re-tracing their steps mentall
piaget’s four stages of development- third stage (and limitation)
3) CONCRETE STAGE (7- 11 years)
- Children can think more logically about objects and experiences
- Can use ‘mental operations’ and engage in reversibility (mentally reversing)
But, they’re very anchored to the ‘here and now’ so have difficulty engaging in abstract thinking (they’re really good at solving current problems)
piaget’s four stages of development- fourth stage
4) FORMAL OPERATIONS (11-adulthood)
- Can think about abstract concepts and from hypotheses
- Can think beyond what is real or concrete
More likely to be fostered in Western societies and major cities than in less developed areas
Occurs later (in life) than Piaget thought
One study found that only 40-60% of first year undergrads used formal operational thought
- We’re more likely to use formal operational thinking in our own area of expertise
evaluation of Piaget’s theory (what he over/underlooked + conclusion about cognitive development_
Piaget founded the academic and research area we know as “cognitive development”
Overall, the sequence of stages seem to be correct
… However…
- Tasks are too language dependent (i.e. for pre-operational children)
- Tasks are too motor dependent (i.e. for sensorimotor infants)
He understemiated the abilities of infants and preschoolers
He overestimated the importance of formal operations and how early they developed
Cognitive development seems to be more gradual than he proposed
- Its continuous rather than abrupt
attachment + difference between love/warmth
ATTACHMENT: a felt sense of security in times of distress
- A strong “emotional connection” with “whom we feel closest”
- Endures over time
- Typically, with trusted caregivers
- This feeling of security originates from …?
Attachment is important for infant survival
- Is activated in times of distress (a negatively valenced affective state)
- Infant seeks caregiver for comfort during distress
- Proximity-seeking (“protect me, i want to feel safe”)
- Infant might seek proximity with caregiver during times of illness/tiredness (not only danger)
Attachment is not the same thing as warmth or ‘love’
- It is a separate emotion/affective system
- Its connected to positively valanced states, such as playfulness, admiration, affection for the child
- We wouldnt play with out child when they are in danger– we protect them and make them feel safe (recall that these are features of the attachment system)
- Warmth also promotes infant survival, but through different mechanisms (it fosters parental investment)
attachment formation (discriminate/clear cut attachment + multiple attachments)
Attachment is formed gradually during first year of life
- Based on emotional system but has cognitive componenets – “Can I count on my attachment figure to be available and responsive when i need them? Can i trst my person?”
Typically, first attachment forms with a primary caregiver (6-9 months): “DISCRIMINATE/CLEAR CUT ATTACHMENT”
- Will show strong protest when a separated from primary figure (seprataion anxiety)
- Prior to 6-7 months, infant will show a preference for primary caregiver over other caregivers, but they will accept care from other people
Later, other attachments form: “MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS” (e..g. other caregivers, siblings)
measuring infant attachment categories from Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” task + 4 different categories and results
In infancy they use a task formed by Mary Ainsworth– “STRANGE SITUATION”
- Baby comes to unfamiliar place with unfamiliar experimenter
- Examines reaction of child to three situations:
1) Exploration (e.g. playing with toys)
2) Caregiver leaves
3) Caregiver returns
SECURE (60%)
- Upset when caregiver leaves
- Is soothed upon caregivers return
INSECURE AVOIDANT (15-20%)
- Seems independent on the surface– explores room freely
- Exhibits little distress when caregiver leaves
- Ignores caregiver upon return
- Cortisol levels show that they’re actually very stressed during this procedure but they dont seem it because they infer that “When I’m upset, my caregiver isnt there for me so I won’t show it”
INSECURE-ANXIOUS (15-20%)
- Extremely upset when caregiver leaves
- Ambivalent when caregiver returns (caregiver is not good source of comfort for the child)
DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT (5-10%)
- Sometimes show patterns from the other two insecure types
- Seem to both approach and avoid caregiver
- May act dazed or freeze
- Typically occurs in situations in which parent is grieving or under extreme stress of depression or infant maltreatment
- Attachment that can be resolved – once e.g. parent resolves their grief and stops crying then the baby will move to another stage of attachment
influences on attachment (Ainsworth’s caregiving hypothesis + conclusions on the different types of atatchments)
CAREGIVING HYPOTHESIS: attachment style is the result of caregiving style…
- But keep in mind bi-directional influences (children’s experiences influence their development, but their development also influences their experiences– parental influence, child influence (temperament), and “goodness of fit”; arrows containing to heads ↔)
Secure attachment→ sensitive caregiving
- Attentiveness, accurate interpretations, timing of response
Anxious (resistant) attachment→ inconsistent caregiving
- Caregiver may engage with the infants sometimes, but ignore at others
- E.g. not very responsive to signals, but if baby starts to explore, parent will interfere by bringing baby’s attention back to them
Avoidant attachment→ impation/rijid, rejecting, or resentful caregiving
- These caregivers do not seem to get a lot of pleasure from their interaction with their infants: “routine” care
- E.g. providing intrusive kinds of care, over-stimulating (such as chatting energetically when baby is actually tired and wants to sleep)
Keep in mind that the child’s features, such as temperament, play a role in attachment
Attachment styles are simply styles … each category is fundamentally different from each other … they are four distinct ones
the role of temperament
TEMPERAMENT: Basic emotional style that appears early in development and is largely genetically influenced
- Individual differences in children’s social and emotional styles reflect differences in temperament
Thomas and Chess identified three temperamental styles:
- Easy infants – adaptable, relaxed
- Difficult infants– fussy, easily frustrated
- Slow-to-warm-up– disturbed by new stimuli at first but gradually adjust to them
Temperament remains largely stable across infancy
it’s bi-directional – An infant’s temperament influences how parents and caregivers interact with their infants, and in turn, parents’ and caregivers’ behaviour probably shapes infants’ temperament
- Nature can shape nurture
Infants with high levels of behavioural inhibition are at heightened risk for shyness and anxiety disorders in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood
culture plays a role in shaping temperament (e.g. cloth over face)
influences of parenting (Baumrind)
Authoritative (supportive but firm) parents– children exhibit the best social and emotional adjustment, lowest levels of behaviour problems
Uninvolved parents (neglectful)– children fare the worst
Permissive (too lenient) or authoritarian (strict) parents– fall in between
Baumrind’s findings suggest that parents should raise their children authoritatively, but findings are correlational and dont take into account genetic influences
emotion
EMOTION: “motivated state marked by 1) physiological arousal, 2) expressive behaviour, and 3) mental experience”
“Mental states/feelings associated with our evaluation of our experiences”
- Evaluation Re two-factor theory
components of emotion
Physiology component
- E.g. heart beats faster, hormones, brain region
Behaviour component
- Expressive changes
- E.g. facial changes
Subjective (cognitive) component
- What we call ‘our feelings’
Emotions are functional
Emotion is a pattern of physiological, cognitive, and behavioural responses that:
- Have adaptive significance
- Have recall attachment and emotional systems
- Allow us to respond appropriately to important environmental demands
why do we have emotions (discrete emotions theory + emotions are adaptive)
DISCRETE EMOTIONS THEORY (DET): Humans experience a small number of distinct emotions that are rooted in their biology
- We are biologically programmed to express/experience in the same way
Emotions are adaptive
- They prepare us for action, especially in situations relevant to our survival
- E.g. disgust around rotting food might help us avoid illness or death
- E.g anger might get us ready to fight off predators
Images from Darwin’s The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals
Darwin said that all primates show highly similar emotional expressions
Darwin said that expression intensifies the emotional experience
primary emotions (+ complex)
If evolutionary in nature, emotions should be universal
… But there will be cultural variations in when and how to express emotions
Theorists disagree on the number of primary emotions (some say 5, some say 7)
…. but there’s good support for 7 primary emotions (Paul Ekman):
- Happiness
- disgust
- fear
- sadness
- surprise
- anger
- contempt
complex emotions are more nuanced…
include jealousy, pride, shame, awe, ect.
paul ekman’s research
PAUL EKMAN
- Study with New Guinea tribal people asking them to select the photograph that matched the story
… after that he concluded there are a small number of primary emotions
Ekman created the Facial Action Coding System (helped people identify and categorize facial expressions linked to certain emotions)
paul ekman’s results on culture and emotion expression
Certain facial expressions are universally interpreted the same way, even in widely distant cultures (e.g. Canada and rural New Guinea)
Happy, sad, and disgusted
- Judged most consistently across cultures
Surprise
- Not judged as consistently with isolated non-literate cultures
Acceptability of emotional expression varies by culture
- Some cultures find certain expressions to be more unpleasant than in other cultures
- E.g. pride is a self-enhancing emotion that is frowned upon in some East Asian countries
- E.g. pride is encouraged in North American contexts
Display rules learned according to culture
- Feeling an emotion does not always correspond with the expression of that emotion
additional evidence for DET
Young infants express emotions and recognize it in others
Around 6-10 weeks, infants have initial smiling (“social smile”)
Infants blind from birth express basic emotions
- Evidence from smiling, frowning, crying
- These infants would not have seen expressions in others, which rules out modeling/learning and reinforcement of emotion
non-verbal markers of emotion
Basic emotions are each accompanied by, and often identified by, their own combination of facial markers
- Activation of upper and lower portions of the face
Anger– eyebrows move down, lips may narrow
Surprise– eyebrows drawn markedly up, eyes widen, mouth opens (everything open)
Disgust– eyes squint, mouth purses, nose raises (everything is closed– avoiding whats disgusting you– facial expression indicates what we’re attempting to do)
Happiness– eyes show crow’s feet/wrinkling at corners, lips pull away at corners and up to create smiling mouth
other observable markers (anger vs fear)
Anger and fear are the most differentiable emotions by looking at markers
All of these observable markers are produced by autonomic nervous system (changes/activity)
Colouration of skin changes
- Reddening vs blanching
- E.g. when fear, we lose colour in skin
- E.g. when angry, skin reddens
Eye pupils change
- Dilate, contract
- E.g. when angry, pupils constrict
- E.g. when fear, pupils dilate
Moisture changes
- E.g. sweating, salivation, tearing up
- E.g. when fear, sweat
- E.g. when anger, foam at mouth
Piloerection– hair standing on end
- E.g. when fear and anger, hairs stand up
insta smile vs real smile (duchenne smile vs pan am smile)
Smiling (lip pulling) is often regarded as a primary facial cue of happiness
- DUCHENNE SMILE: genuine smile
- DUCHENNE MARKER: contraction around eyes to create crow’s feet/wrinkles for a real smile
- Lip pulling (i.e. smiley mouth)
Genuine smiles show both eye and mouth activation/contraction
… Posed/fake smiles have different facial markers from genuine smiles (movement from mouth but not eyes)
PAN AM SMILE: fake smiles
can you tell real from fake smiles
People can judge fake from genuine smiles with 50-70% accuracy
The main reason for being able to trick people with a fake smile has to do with individual abilities in consciously controlling facial regions
Most of us can control our mouths consciously
… However, about 20% of people can consciously control the Duchenne marker (contraction around eyes)
This means some people can make a Duchenne smile in a posed image, but are not really happy
(key points of the) four major theories of emotion
MAJOR THEORIES OF EMOTION: describe different relations between physiology and the subjective or the cognitive
1) JAMES-LANG SOMATIC THEORY/ANS SPECIFICITY
- derived by William James
- Suggests body is the starting point of the creation of feelings
- We experience emotions internally in response to physiological changes
- Feelings are last as the response
- Stimulus → Physiological response → Subjective “feeling(s)”
2) CANNON-BARD THEORY/SNS PATHWAY
- derived by Walter Cannon and Bard
- Feelings occur independent of emotional expression, no correlation with physiological state
- Emotional responses happen in parallel (parallel pathways in the brain that respond to emotional triggers)
- Stimulus → Physiological response AND/OR Subjective “feeling(s)”
3) TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF EMOTION
- derived by Schacter and Singer
- Experience of emotion is determined by an awareness of whats happening in the body and a cognitive appraisal of the situation
- We decide which emotion we’re experiencing
- Stimulus → Experience physiological change → Cognitive appraisal (interpretation) of physiological change → Subjective experience
4) COGNITIVE-MEDIATIONAL THEORY
- derived by Richard Lazarus
- Cognitive appraisal is the first step in the emotion process
- Different people respond the same stimulus in different ways
- Stimulus → Appraisal → Subjective emotional response
the “common sense” view - emotions
THE “COMMON SENSE” VIEW:
- Stimulus → Subjective “feeling(s)” → Physiological changes
- Theres some stimulus, we feel something about it, and then we experience some physiological change/response
- E.g. “This happened to me” → “I felt angry” → “My face got red”
- E.g. Bear → fear → fight/flight response
James-Lang theory
James-Lange Theory:
- Stimulus → Physiological response → Subjective “feeling(s)”
- We feel fear BECAUSE our heart starts beating or we start sweating
According to William James, the stimuli, which is emotional in nature will cause physiological reactions
- We perceive our bodily changes, and THEN we experience the “feelings”
- E.g. We see the bear, we start sweating, and then we experience fear
We might experience the feelings because of motor changes in the body that we perceive
- E.g. if you start running away from a terrifying stimulus, those motor responses are perceived and we then experience the subjective emotional state
William James’ view on emotion and physiology (intellectual perception)
James says phsyiology is an integral part of our emotional experience
- He says that without bodily responses, the experience is not an ‘emotional one’
… Rather, its simply an “INTELLECTUAL PERCEPTION”: emotional experiences without the bodily response (e.g. sweating, heart racing, etc.)
- E.g. Sadness is not sadness without tears, anger is not anger, fear is not fear without the pounding heart
His premise was for basic emotions, not for more complex ones
James was a theorist who did not do experimentation to support his theory
- He came across a few case studies that suggested if your sensory and motor feedback is cut, emotional experience is dulled/not there
William James’ proposal of ANS (autonomic nervous system) Specificity
James proposed ANS specificity, but did not use the term “ANS” – autonomic nervous system (which is split into sympathetic– fight or flight response, and parasympathetic parts– rest and digest)
ANS SPECIFICITY: Each basic emotion has its own unique pattern of physiology
- Different emotions have distinct autonomic nervous system responses
- E.g. fear is gonna look different from anger on physiological levels
Walter Cannon + SNS (sympathetic nervous system) pathway
Walter Canon first documented and described the fight or flight response (which is part of the SNS)
- Increased heart rate and respiration
- Increased blood pressure
- Changes in digestive functioning
- Sweating
- Tremors
Body parts involved:
- Adrenal medulla
- Various internal organs including the heart
Substances:
- Epinephrine
- Norepinephrine
An early evolutionary adaptation that is useful in dealing with physical threats
Cannon-Bard Theory
Derived by Cannon and his student James Bard
- Cannon was a pioneer in psychophysiology
- Canon did experimental work (unlike James) on cats
- He severed afferent nerves (nerves that take sensory/motor information from the environment to CNS) and found that cats still produced emotional responses like hissing and hairs standing up
CANNON-BARD THEORY: subjective experiences of emotion do not require physiological changes
- They are independent and not causally linked
- people can experience the same physiological state but different emotional states (re two-factor theory of emotion)
Opposite of James’ theory
- Cannon stated that physiological changes occurred too slowly for them to happen first in the causal chain of events
Physiology and cognition may or may not occur together
- One is NOT causing the other (whereas James said that one does cause the other)
- E.g. stimulus of a bear causes physiological response and causes feeling of fear
- E.g. We perceive the stimulus and it could produce both physiology and subjective part together (physiology doesn’t cause cognition change and vice versa)
The situation of the stimulus could lead to both physiological and subjective experience of emotion
- physiology and cognition MAY co-occur but one is not causing the other
Cannon’s thoughts on ANS specificity
He disagreed with James re ANS specifcity
… Regardless of whether we fight or flee, our body’s response is the same (e.g. we’ll still have dilated pupils, feel shakey, racing heart, increased blood pressure, etc.)
Different emotions do not ‘look’ differently in terms of their autonomic responses
- E.g. whether cat is angry or fearful, it’ll still arch its back and have hairs stand up
James-Lange and Cannon-Bard theories sparked lots of research for many decades (since the 1950s), especially re ANS specificity
Ekman’s study findings (specific ANS markers)
EKMAN’S STUDY supports James’ theory and DET
- Participants posed with a specific facial expression, and he measured various autonomic markers such as heart rate and finger temperature
- He found that heart rate and finger temperature supported that we can discriminate different emotions
- We can discriminate all the different emotions from each other
Since the participants POSED for the facial expressions instead of looking at photos of expressions, his research suggests that facial and motor expressions feedback from muscles in the face loop back and feedback to produce different autonomic patterns
Since Ekman’s study (seven years of research), there’s been robust evidence for autonomic specificity for basic emotions (support for James’ ANS theory)
- There’s been many replications
On a physiological level, by looking at ANS markers, we can reliably tell emotions apart/discriminate them (anger, fear, surprise, disgust, happiness, sadness)
- Markers like skin temperature, skin blood flow, skin conductance (of electricity), ECG (heart rate), respiration, etc.
SKIN CONDUCTANCE reliably discriminates positive vs negative emotions
- Skin conductance activity is highest for negative emotions like anger, but also happiness
- Skin conductance was lowest for surprise, sadness, and disgust
- Fear was in the middle
- Skin conductance differentiated fear from happiness and anger– high arousal emotions
DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE– (pressure on arteries when heart rests between beats) reliably discriminates between sadness and happiness, and anger and fear
- Increases during sadness, decreases during happiness
- Increases during anger, increases during fear
SKIN TEMPERATURE is the autonomic measure that will differentiate anger from all the other emotions (e.g. “blood boiling”)
- Increases sharply during anger and surprise
- Decrease during disgust, fear, happiness, and sadnessI
what to make of Ekman’s findings
Meta-analyses indicate we can discriminate between negative and positive emotions autonomically
Anger and fear are sharply different (Cannon said they were the same)
…. However, it depends on which markers are used in the study
- Inconsistencies result from which markers were used and the specific pattern that emerges within that group of markers
- e.g. Electrodermal (skin conductance) is a pretty good marker of ANS activity to discriminate different groups of emotions – most reliable
- A combination of electrodermal (skin conductance), thermovascular, and respiratory measures is most effective for discriminating all pair-ups of emotions (happiness vs sadness, sadness vs disgust, etc.)
So, a lot of evidence suggests James was right in respect to ANS specificity!
can we differentiate emotions at brain level
We are able to differentiate some primary emotions on neural level (activity in the brain)
- Anger– activity in orbifrontal cortex + amygdala
- Disgust– activity in insula (part of limbic system– part of emotional processing system)
- Fear– activity in amygdala (part of limbic system)
Not all emotions are different, though
- Happiness and sadness can look similar in brain scans
There are always multiple brain regions that are active in all emotions
the Schacter and Singer’s Two-Factor Theory of emotion)
Schacter and Singer’s TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF EMOTION:
- Stimulus → Experience physiological change → Cognitive appraisal (interpretation) of physiological change → Subjective experience of emotion
- This theory’s causal chain of events is similar to James-Lange theory (subjective feeling comes AFTER physiological experience)
Two factors:
1) Physiology/arousal
2) Appraisal/explanation of the arousal (cognitive labelling)
- E.g. if we appraise our raising heart as anxiety, THEN we will “feel” anxious/fearful
- E.g. if we appraise our racing heart as anger, THEN we will “feel” angry/aggressive
In the study, participants were injected, and some were told to expect physiological side effects (informed group) where the other half was not (uninformed group)
- Uninformed participants: interpreted their bodily responses (heart racing, sweaty palms) in relation to what was happening in the room/the confederate’s reactions
… happy confederate = reported feeling happy, angry confederate = reported feeling angry
- Informed participants: since they were expecting the physiological side effects, didn’t experience any high-end emotions (they knew that their physiological effects were explained by the injection)
This difference bet. groups shows that cognitive labelling does play a role in how we feel
The study’s evidence suggests that participants appraise/interpret both their bodily changes and /environmental cues/stimuli
- You find a label for what’s happening in your body based on environment – “Why do I feel like this?”
- E.g. if you look to the stimulus (person speaking aggressively), you might label your emotion as anger or fear in response to aggressive person
The study is similar to Walter Cannon (i.e. different experiences look the same in the body)
- All uninformed participants experienced the same physiological arousal (heart racing, sweaty palms), but different emotional states (happy vs angry depending on the confederate)
Richard Lazarus + cognitive-mediational theory
COGNITIVE-MEDIATIONAL THEORY:
- Stimulus → Appraisal → Subjective emotional response
- Subjective experience (our feelings) is influenced by our cognitive appraisal of the stimulus/situation
- Focused on our appraisal of the situation itself, not our bodies themselves (Schacter)
- Both the Two Factor Theory and Cognitive Mediational Theory are appraisal theories!
summary of comparisons between theories
Common sense view and James-Lange theory: causally reverse theories in regard to physiology and cognition
Cannon disagrees with James- physiology plays no part in subjective emotional experiences
two-factor theory of emotion suggests a similar chain of events to James-Lange theory- subjective feeling comes after the physiological change
two-factor theory is similar to Walter Cannon (the same physiological experiences produce different emotional states- emotions are independent of physiological state)
two-factor theory and cognitivie-mediational theory are appraisal-based theories!
James seems to be correct about a lot of things (i.e. different emotions look different on an autonomic level) and is supported by several research
James-Lang sub-theories
FACIAL FEEDBACK THEORY: if we pose in the expression of emotions, we will actually create and feel that emotion
SOMATIC MARKER THEORY: physiological changes associated with emotions
stress + stressor + robert sapolsky (hoemstatis)
STRESS: a physical RESPONSE to demands (according to Seyle– “Stress is death” video)
- Seyle primarily focused on the physiology of stress
Stress is a pattern of of physiological behavioural, emotional, and cognitive resposnes to real or imagined stimuli
- often, these stimuli are threatning/demanding
STRESSOR: a stimulus this triggers the stress response
- The external demand or threat
Stress response knocks you out of homeostatic balance (we usually turn it on for very prolonged periods of time, whereas its supposed to be used for short stress responses)
stress as a process + RE Lazarus’ cognitive-mediational theory
Stress/turning on your fight or flight response has the same effect on the body regardless of what its for
- eg. having a midterm or the subway being delayed
Fight or flight response is designed for SHORT-TERM emergencies/survival situations
STRESS AS A PROCESS: Creating interpretations of stimuli
- Our appraisal/interpretation of events determines our stress response !!!!!
- Our interpretations vary, which is why some, e.g., turn physically ill from stress for a midterm and others don’t
Our emotional reaction to stressors depends on how we interpret them
… Richard Lazarus’ Cognitive-Mediational Theory– there’s two appraisals
- 1) PRIMARY APPRAISAL: interpreting a stimulus and asking “Is this a threat? How severe is it?”
- 2) SECONDARY APPRAISAL: evaluating our resources and asking “Do i have the ressources to cope with this threat?”
Reminder– our interpretations are not facts
- Appraisal can exaggerate emotional stress response
can stress be a good thing (distress vs eustress + yerke-dodson law)
Seyle distinguished between distress and eustress
- DISTRESS: arises from unpleasantly valanced events/stimuli
- EUSTRESS arises from pleasantly valanced events/stimuli
Modern ways thinking of eustress has more to do with the LEVEL of our stress response (not the TYPE of STIMULUS)
YERKE-DODSON LAW: there is an optimal level of arousal (stress) that is needed for us to do well on certain tasks
- When our stress is at its optimal level, our performance is at its peak
- Too low– unmotivated and bored
- Too high- overly stressed and have trouble thinking straight and making good choices
- Easy tasks– can get away with high levels of stress
- Novel/complex tasks– cannot function with high levels of stress
kinds of stressors + other types
stressors are a type of stimulus **
ACTUTE STRESSOR:
- short-term
- has defined end-point; the stressor goes away after the end-point
- E.g. stress during job interview, stress when almost getting run over by car while crossing the street
CHRONIC STRESSOR:
- long-term
- no defined end-point
- E.g. unemployment, being in a miserable relationship
MICRO STRESSOR/DAILY HASSLES: everyday events, people, and things that annoy us
- Strain our ability to cope
- They range in severity
- They are cumulative and can build up to produce similar/worse outcomes to chronic stressors – don’t underestimate their severity
- E.g. msiplacing keys, traffic, back-to-back meetings, long wait times
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS/”TRAUMA” STRESSOR
- e.g. natural disaster, wars
E..g natural disasters, wars
SOCIO-CULTURAL STRESSOR
E.g. laws (bills, mandates), leadership that impinges on individual rights
sources of stress + SRRS
Life change is central for stressors
- Lack of predictability and lack of control
- E.g. bringing a newborn home for the first time– lifestyle adjustments
SOCIAL READJUSTMENT RATING SCALE (SRRS): Measures changes that disrupt everyday life and ranked life changes
- May be extreme changes, such as disaster or death of a close family member, or may be fairly minor, like starting a new job
- The higher the score for life changes, the higher the readjustment in behaviour/lifestyle
critique of SRRS
SRRS does not address appraisal of events
SRRS does not differentiate different types of stressors
SRRS was developed on Caucasion American adults in the 1960’s, bringing to question stressors of current socio-historic times, different age groups, and different ethnic groups
stress and body- the fight or flight response
Recall Walter Canon– discovered fight or flight, studied ANS and responses associated with stress/high-state emotion
- e.g. Increased heart rate and respiration, blood pressure, changes in digestive functioning, sweating, tremors
FIGHT OR FLIGHT: an evolutionary adaptation that is useful in dealing with physical threats
- Helps us deal with short-term problems
Where does fight or flight response originate from? (two parts of our stress response-> first and second stress pathway)
FIRST STRESS PATHWAY– SNS (Sympathetic Nervous System)
- Adrenal medulla (various internal organs including the heart) triggers the release of adrenaline
- Substances: epinephrine (aka adrenaline/adrenal-medullary system), norepinephrine
- Prominent in times of cold temperatures, “mild exercise”
SECOND STRESS PATHWAY– HPA AXIS
- H= Hypothalmus, P= pituitary, A= adrenal cortex
- Substances: secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), which in turn secretes cortisol
- Prominent in times of emotional distress, low blood sugars
Both systems are typically activated together
Seyle’s General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
GENERAL ADAPTATION SYNDROME (GAS): stress-response pattern that consists of three stages of adaptation: 1) alarm, 2) resistance, and 3) exhaustion
- outlines a model of prolonged stress
- propose by Hans Seyle, who did experiments with rats exposed to various stressors (intense exercise, injury, restraint, heat, cold)
- Theres an inverse relation between our stress hormones and resistance
Has three stages:
1) ALARM
- Stressor occurs
- Fight or flight response (ANS excitation), high arousal, and rush of stress hormones (adrenaline)
- Anxiety related to the limbic system– amygdala (emotional memories are stored), hippocampus, and hypothalmus
- HPA pathway activates (H receives signal of fear, which activates the A), which secretes the stress hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine (SNS), which causes physiological arousal (high blood pressure, dilated pupils), preparing for fight or flight, and then P releases cortisol which floods individual with energy, while H is actively recalling terrifying images from memory
2) RESISTANCE
- Body adjusts to continuing threat– cope with stressor
- Slight drop in arousal and stress hormone; body tries to repair and adapt
- Coritsol levels drop close to baseline, but resistance to the stressor is higher
3) EXHAUSTION
- Depletion of resources– body starts to give up
Sapolsky + Allostatic load (homestasis)
Sapolsky referenced the term HOMEOSTASIS: equilibrium
During times of emergences, body processes involved in bringing body back to steady states are thrown “out of whack”
ALLOSTATIC LOAD: constant activation of the mechanisms designed to bring the body back to its steady state/homeostasis
- The body works hard to bring the body back to homeostasis and cortisol back to baseline, which causes * wear and tear on the body *
Allostatic load increases with the chronic (re-)activation of either stress pathway, which worsens insulin resistance and accelerates thickening of heart muscles
- HPA activation is related to changes in hippocampal neurons
… long-term activation of stress hormones is damaging to our bodies
stress hormones (cortisol) and immune functioning
Cortisol helps us during acute stress
…. However, ongoing cortisol release creates inflammation (i.e. swelling, heat) in the body
Inflammation (e.g. at the site of an injury) is part of our immune response, but chronic inflammation/over-activation itself is damaging to our bodies
Ongoing cortisol release eventually slows down our immune systems
Physical activity is an important part in reducing chronic inflammation in our bodies
Coronary heart disease/cardiovascular disease (factors)
HEART DISEASE/CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE: blockages of arteries– less oxygen to the heart
- Involves atherosclerosis, a narrowing of arteries and inflammation in artery walls
One of the top causes of death in Canada and other countries
Many factors include:
- Family history of CHD/CVD
- Type A personality and trait hostility
- Low socioeconomic status
- Smoking, not enough activity
- Autonomic reactivity to stressors *
autonomic reactivity and managing stress response
Important to consider in mitigating our stress responses
Exaggerated stressor-related autonomic responses are a well-studied factor in CHD/CVD
- Autonomic responses are “beyond the metabolic and behavioural demands of a given stressor”
Predictor of various conditions involved with CHD/CVD
- Ventricular mass (i.e. hypertrophy/enlargement), which in and of itself is a strong predictor of CVD related death
- Fast-progressing artherosclerosis
- Hypertension (high blood pressure)
- Heart attack
- Death
coping
Seyle viewed stress as an innevitable part of life
- “Only the dead have no stress”
So we need to learn how to temper our appraisals to our benefit and heighten our awareness of different kinds of coping that most of us already use
COPING: our active efforts to reduce the demands created by stressors
problem-focused coping vs emotion-focused coping
PROBLEM-FOCUSED COPING: figuring out ways to decrease or get rid of the stressor/demand
Very similar to ‘everyday problem solving’ and is a form of behavioural control around stress
Generating possible solutions and acting on the best one
- Doing something proactive to decrease the impact of that stressor
EMOTION-FOCUSED COPING: efforts to change or reduce the negative emotions
- Usen when we dont have actual control over the situation/stressor
- E.g. we might find a silver lining or minimize our emotions
Recall that its our interpretation of events, not events themselves, that produces stress
Emotional-focused coping often involves reappraisal
Changing perception and beliefs of the stressor
When we think differently, we feel differently
control is important in stress (informational v decision control)
Having some sense of control over a stressor reduces the impact of it
INFORMATIONAL CONTROL:” can we get information about a stressful event?”
DECISION CONTROL: “can we choose among different courses of action in life situations?”
Both actual control and perceived control is good *
- An increase in our sense of perceived control (the amount of control you feel you have over a situation) is just as good as having actual control *
