The Self II: Optimism & the Human Brain

Question 1

THE SELF THUS FAR

Answer 1

• above average effect/superiority illusion
• most rank themselves above average
• logically impossible; most cannot be better than most; blind to illusions

Question 2

OPTIMISM BIAS

Answer 2

• dif between person’s expectations/outcome
• if expectations = better > reality -> bias = optimistic
  SHAROT (2012)
• in charge of keeping minds at ease/bodies healthy
• moves us forward rather than up

Question 3

SOCIAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE ON OPTIMISM

Answer 3

• queries of:
  1. how brain mediates OB?
  2. why we still show unrealistic optimism (UO) despite reality disagreeing?
  3. does research resist scrutiny?
  4. is OB always occurring?

Question 4

SHAROT ET AL (2007): METHOD

Answer 4

• fMRI collected while pps thought autobiographical events from past/future
• rated memories/projections on 6 factors linkes to subjective experience (ie. arousal/vividness)
• completed Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R) measuring trait optimism; eg:
  1. if something can go wrong, it will
  2. i’m always optimistic about the future
  3. i rarely count on good things happening

Question 5

SHAROT ET AL (2007): PRELIM FINDINGS

Answer 5

• future positive events rated ^ positive > future negatives; imagined in closer temporal proximity > future negatives
• negative futures = < strongly experienced than positive futures
• the more optimistic pps (LOT-R score) the more likely to expect positives to occur before/more strongly than negatives

Question 6

SHAROT ET AL (2007): FMRI FINDINGS

Answer 6

• several regions of interest (ROIs) identified:
• rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC)
• ventral medial prefrontal cortex
• posterior cingulate cortex
• dorsal medial prefrontal cortex
• ALL key in autobiographical memory retrieval/imagining future events
• amygdala (emotions in autobiographical memory) also found as ROI

Question 7

SHAROT ET AL (2007): NEXT STEPS

Answer 7

• questioned if changes in brain regions correlate w/LOT-R scores aka. do optimistic people’s brains show dif activation patterns?
• evidence of relation between LOT-R scores/rACC ONLY
• correlation between rACC/amygdala activity when imagining future positives (weaker for negatives)

Question 8

SHAROT ET AL (2007): CONCLUSIONS

Answer 8

• we can’t do much about the past but there’s flexibility in future interpretation
• evidence of distancing ourselves from negatives closer to positive events esp. in ^ trait optimism

Question 9

SHAROT ET AL (2007): POSSIBLE MECHANISM UNDERLYING OPTIMISM BIAS

Answer 9

• reduced blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal observed in amygdala/rACC during future negative imagining related to future positives
• = optimism bias related to reduction in negative future thought

Question 10

SHAROT ET AL (2007): SPECULATIONS

Answer 10

• rACC activity thinking about futures = suggestive of self-regulatory focus underpinning attention/vigilance bias towards positives over negatives
• possible link w/mechanisms underlying depression; do depressed individuals imagine future dif? is this reflected in brain acitivity?

Question 10

SHAROT ET AL (2007): SPECULATIONS

Answer 10

• rACC activity thinking about futures = suggestive of self-regulatory focus underpinning attention/vigilance bias towards positives over negatives
• possible link w/mechanisms underlying depression; do depressed individuals imagine future dif? is this reflected in brain acitivity?

Question 11

SHAROT ET AL (2011)

Answer 11

• UO = not always adaptive
• persists even when reality provides info challenging beliefs
• influential learning theories suggest we should adjust in response to this BUT…
• data suggests we don’t always do so
• experts show OB; financial analysts expect improbably high profits/family law attorneys underestimate negative divorce consequences

Question 12

SHAROT ET AL (2011): METHOD

Answer 12

• combined learning procedure w/fMRI
• fMRI data obtained while pps estimated experiencing adverse life events likelihood (ie. cancer diagnosis, robbery etc.)
• told average individual experiencing event prob after each trial
• allowed researchers to see how much pps adjusted beliefs w/new info

Question 13

SHAROT ET AL (2011): RESULTS

Answer 13

• selective updating = pps learned greater extent from info offering optimistic expectation chance > info challenging rosy outlook
• ^ likely to update beliefs when average prob of experiencing negative event = lower than own prob
• 79% pps

Question 14

SHAROT ET AL (2011): RESULTS CRITIQUE

Answer 14

• BUT…
• down to weighing desirable info > in memory?
  NO: memory = for positive/negative items
• down to emotional arousal difs?
  NO
• down to underlying event base rate difs?
  NO

Question 15

SHAROT ET AL (2011): CONCLUSIONS

Answer 15

• beh findings suggest likely computational principle mediating UO
• point to estimation errors; providing learning signal whose impact depends on new info needs optimistic/pessimistic direction update

Question 16

SHAROT ET AL (2011): BRAIN ACITIVITY RESULTS

Answer 16

• looked at brain activity when desirable (prob < likely than thought) VS undesirable (prob > likely than thought)
• updates provided
• brain activity ^ when prob = ^ desirable than estimates
• more for those scoring ^ on LOT-R

Question 17

SHAROT ET AL (2011): OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

Answer 17

• findings offer mechanistic account of how unrealistic optimism persists despite challenging info
• optimism = related to diminished coding of undesirable info about future in frontal cortex (sensitive to negative estimation errors)
• pps w/^ trait optimism scores = worse at tracking undesirable errors in region than lower scores

Question 18

FURTHER UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM CRITIQUE

Answer 18

SHAH ET AL (2017)
- suggested Sharot et al (2007; 2011) findings = statistical artefact
- tests used do not adequately allow knowing if OB is occurring
- own research used task analyses/simulations
- experimental studies showed no OB evidence

Question 19

SHAH ET AL (2017): SHAROT’S RESPONSE

Answer 19

• looked at experiments/simulations in Shah (2017)
• reanalysed own data using new stats methods
• found confounds in Shah’s studies
• took issue w/some Shah procedures
• after correcting for confound, STILL FOUND OB EVIDENCE IN DATA

Question 20

DOES SELECTIVE UPDATING VANISH DURING THREAT?

Answer 20

GARRETT ET AL (2018)
- in safe surrounding w/low potential harm, asymmetry in info integration may lead to biased expectations
- BUT in environments rife w/threat, psychological/psychology response may trigger changes to how info is integrated -> more balanced info integration
- adaptive in environments w/potentially high threat risks

Question 21

GARRETT ET AL (2018): LAB STUDY

Answer 21

• threat manipulated/assessed via self-reported trait anxiety/skin conductance/cortisol levels
• belief updating task similar to previous studies
• low threat environment = individuals integrated info asymmetrically; incorporated good news/disregarded bad news
• perceived threat = pps showed ^ capacity to integrate bad news into prior beliefs
• increased physiological arousal/self-reported anxiety correlated w/enhanced integration of unfavourable info into beliefs

Question 22

GARRET ET AL (2018): FIELD STUDY

Answer 22

• fire department setting
• firefighters on duty reporting ^ stage anxiety = greater selective integration of bad news
• ruled out other explanations in both studies (ie. general learning improvement/attentional difs)

Question 23

GARRETT ET AL (2018): CONCLUSIONS

Answer 23

• shows selective updating may be adaptive
• evidence = asymmetric info integration not set but changes acutely w/environment ie. decreasing w/perceived threat
• flexibility could be adaptive -> potentially enhancing likelihood to warning responses w/caution in environments w/^ future costs BUT…
• enables maintenance of positive beliefs otherwise
• strategy which increases well-being on balance

Question 24

! SUMMARY !

Answer 24

• recent brain research suggests dif activity patterns to imagined positive/negative life events AND bias in updating beliefs allowing bias to persist
• some research hasn’t found OB BUT still fairly reliable finding as a general rule