Personality, Intelligence and Psychopathology Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture 1 Overview-personality trait: an enduring tendency or predisposition to think, feel n behave in certain ways (McCrae & Costa, 2003); trait= continuous dimension (normally distributed), type= discrete category, can convert a trait to a type but lose info; Five Factor Model/ Big Five: ...

Description

Lecture 1 Overview!

-personality trait: an enduring tendency or predisposition to think, feel n behave in certain ways (McCrae & Costa, 2003); trait= continuous dimension (normally distributed), type= discrete category, can convert a trait to a type but lose info; Five Factor Model/ Big Five: Openness to experience (intellect/ culture), Conscientiousness (dependability), Extraversion (surgency), Agreeableness, Neuroticism (emotional stability); HEXACO (emerge in other lang lexicons n some English datasets): Honesty/ Humility (sincere, modest, fair, x greedy/ boastful), Emotionality (neuroticism + sentiment - anger), eXtraversion, Agreeableness (Agreeableness + anger sentiment), Conscientiousness, Openness to experience; Dark Triad; Eysenck’s PEN Model 1967; Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory; temperament & character model (4 temperament dimensions, argued to be genetically based; 3 character dimensions, psychosocially shaped); UPPS impulsivity (related to externalising prob e.g. substance abuse, aggression, risky sex, eating disorders; 4 forms, each derived from a facet of Big 5 trait: urgency [neuroticism], sensation[conscientiousness]); sensation-seeking (individual diff in need for varied/ novel/ complex sensations n willingness to take risks for this)! -do personality traits always predict beh: situations drive beh (situationism); personality x situation (interaction; strong sit constrain beh, weak sit allow traits to guide beh); personality leads to sit (interdependent; ppl choose their own sit, ppl perceive n interpret sit differently)! -reliability: give consistent results regardless of when (test-retest reliability), where, which bit (internal consistency) n by whom it is scored (inter-rater reliability); indicate the amt of measurement error in responses! -validity: measure wt it is supposed to measure n nth else; construct validity (overall term, x test directly but can test with some specific criteria): face validity, convergent validity (e.g. btn selfreports n other-report, btn explicit n implicit tests), discriminant validity, predictive validity! -measures of personality: observational measures (interviews often in clinical setting; beh coding e.g. EAR [capture natural beh, record]), explicit self-report questionnaires (e.g. Big Five questionnaires), implicit measures (projective tests e.g. TAT; implicit association test; e.g. Big Five IAT; only implicit E & N predict beh)! -personality traits & life outcomes (Soto, 2019): replicate 78 associations of Big Five traits with important life outcomes (e.g. wellbeing, health, forgiveness, attractiveness, occupation interests, success, criminal beh), total N=6000 (~1500 for each effect), 87% of effects were replicated (sig agn, so trait literature is reliable n personality has real consequences) but effect sizes just 77% as strong as the original (effect sizes may be biased/ inflated, some false +ve)!

Lecture 2 Evolutionary personality theories! -learning outcomes:! • describe the core claims of evolutionary psychology! • describe the evolutionary theory account of personality, including presence of individual differences, K factor and the Big 5/6 traits! • critically evaluate the extent to which evolutionary theory can account for individual differences in personality! • discuss common objections to evolutionary psychology! -origins of modern humans: homo erectus originated in Africa; migrated out of Africa 1.8m yrs ago, n to Europe 0.78m yrs ago! -evolutionary theory [human beh n personality reflect result of…]:! • natural variation (heritable) & struggle for survival/ reproduction! • natural selection= characteristics tht r adaptive for survival r more likely to be passed on! • sexual selection (esp in males)= characteristics tht r desirable to a mate, characteristics tht win intrasexual competition! -testing evolutionary psy: x go bk in time n test by observation; inspect how psychological features r adaptive for survival n reproduction in assumed evolutionary environment (functional [adaptive in natural/ sexual selection], domain-specific, numerous [numerous adaption, characteristics e.g. social bonding]), test hypotheses abt design features of mechanisms (e.g. memory for evolutionary-relevant info), show tht patterns r universal across cultures, some hypotheses well-supported but others hv been falsified! -levels of explanation: evolved characteristics of human nature (e.g. fear of strangers, need to belong); evolved grp diff (e.g. sex diff), structure of individual diff (nomothetic approach); individual uniqueness (idiographic approach)! -grp diff in mating strategies: women more parental investment (more selective, value partner’s ability to protect, provide n be faithful), look for resources, status, ambition, maturity, dependability, intelligence, compatibility, commitment, strength, health etc; men lower parental mates, look for young, beauty, faithfulness; evidence is cross-cultural! -evolution of indi diff: traditional evolutionary view tht indi diff reflect random variation n can be discarded as irrelevant ‘noise’; modern view tht traits reflect range of equally adaptive strategies + directional selection [more adaptive in one end than the other e.g. length of giraffe’s neck] + dependent selection [example of fluctuating, adaptiveness varies depending on rare ng rare, -ve: characteristic adaptive only if rare, e.g. snake ng poisonous if houci = rare]! -life history theory (Wilson, 1975): diff indi use diff strategies to maximise survival n reproduction success; cuz an indi has finite energy, each strategy involves a trade-off btn costs n benefits e.g. mating effort vs parental investment; traditionally applied to diff btn species n some sex diff, recently applied to understand indi diff! -the ‘K’ factor: underlying personality dimension reflecting mating effort vs parental investment; ‘Cad’ (mating effort, low K) vs ‘Dad’ (parental investment, high K); if high K= high attachment to

-evolution of the big five personality traits [presence of particular PTs can be viewed as adaptive in evolutionary environment]: universal, can be seen in other species, hv moderate-high

heritability estimates (genetic variation), r relevant for challenges of survival n reproduction in context of grp living (cooperation, teamwork, conflict) -> so certain personality traits may make aspects of grp living more or less successful! -(Nettle, 2005) higher score of extraversion for ppl with more lifetime sexual partners n infidelity, n hving children with diff partners; costs of E: infidelity n children by multiple partners would reduce investment in each child in evolutionary history + ppl who had ever been hospitalised due to illness or accident had higher E + E related to higher criminal/ anti-social beh; but E relates to having more grandchildren, so ultimately successful in evolutionary terms, optimal level would fluctuate depending on local conditions! -‘K’ & personality traits (Figueredo et al., 2005): males lower K than females, males higher psychoticism (r=.-67) [impulsive, risk-taking, x consider others] & neuroticism (r=-.24), extraversion (r=.12)! -strengths of evolutionary personality theory: propose ‘ultimate explanation’ for beh; complements other levels of analysis! -criticisms (Buller, 2009): x know wt prob ancestors faced + minds x exclusively Stone Age, some characteristics older (other animals) n some more recent + evidence x test causality or compare to similar species + other influences (e.g. sociocultural) may be stronger than evolutionary ones, but evolved mechanisms r triggered by environmental input n underlie learning + reductionist + young field; speculative & unfalsifiable!

Lecture 3 Dark Triad! -learning outcomes! • describe the features of narcissism, machiavellianism & psychopathy (and briefly sadism), & relate each to basic models of personality! • evaluate the structure & causes (including evolutionary theory) of the Dark Triad traits! • explain the dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcissism! • apply research on the dark triad to relationship, organisational, and criminal settings, critically evaluate the extent to which these traits r ‘gd’ or ‘bad’! -dark triad (measure using the Dirty Dozen, 12-item measure; overlapping yet distinct subclinical traits)!

to do so’! • psychopathy (Hare, 1991): impulsivity, thrill-seeking, lack of empathy/ anxiety; ‘fun to see how far u can push someone before they catch on’! -evolutionary theory of the dark triad: short-term, agentic, exploitative social strategy (exploit other grp members to serve own survival, attract mates at expense of competitors willing to work in order to blast opponent)! -antisocial/ criminal beh: [self-report in students; Williams et al., 2001] P (all delinquent beh including serious crime), M (bullying n minor crime), N (bullying, drugs, anti-authority acts, minor crime); [Williams et al., 2010] academic cheating, Turnitin plagiarism related to all but strongest to psychopathy (r=.22), x due to lower verbal ability, self-reported cheating mediated by unrestrained agency n lack of moral inhibition -> although adaptive in some contexts, the dark triad has antisocial implications! -criminal beh: [Blickle et al., 2006] white-collar criminals higher in N than current managers; [Hepper et al., 2014] young offenders higher in N (esp entitlement) vs community members, mediated by low empathy; [Leistico et al., 2008] widespread evidence for high P in offenders (meta-analysis d=.55), but mostly using clinical measures n less attention to subcomponents, x assess all of the dark triad at once! -N & beh: Ludus love style [player], low commitment, focus on alternatives; relationships end quickly, partner unhappy; narcissists attractive for short-term flings (n ‘adaptive’ admiration component predicts partner +ve view), but predicts conflict n lower quality in long-term relationships! -nature or nurture: [Vernon et al., 2008, twin study of Dark Triad & Big Five, 75 pairs of MZ & 64 pairs of DZ adult twins] N (59% genetics, overlaps with A, E; 41% non-shared env), P (64% genetics, overlaps with A, C; 32% non-shared env), M (31% genetics, overlaps with A, C; 39% shared env; 30% non-shared env) -> dark triad share some genetic basis! -environmental causes of N: detectable from age 8; childhood origins= wounded or spoilt?; retrospective evidence supports the spoilt hypothesis (parental overvaluation, leniency, well understood! -most research has focused on young adults, would we expect any of these traits to change with age?; where is the distinction btn ‘normal’ levels of dark triad n ‘clinical’ level?!

Lecture 4 Adult attachment in relationships! -learning outcomes! • describe the structure & origins of individual differences in adult romantic attachment! • discuss the relations btn adult attachment & affect regulation, personality, personal relationships and mental health! • evaluate whether attachment insecurity can be evolutionarily adaptive! • begin to evaluate the extent to which individual differences in attachment r fixed or changeable! -romantic partnerships r attachment bonds: evolutionarily adaptive to be attached to mate; 4 main attachment functions/ features (secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, separation anxiety); develop in same phases as infant attachment; adult pair bond = attachment + caregiving + sexuality! -internal working models: mental representations/ schemas of relationships (self= am i worthy of love & affection; other= will my caregiver be available & reliable); guide expectations & beh; nature of experiences with primary caregivers -> ans to these q (internal working models) -> attachment style; schemas persist over time & applied to new ppl, but open to revision in light of sig experiences -> stability! -Shaver & Mikulincer (2002) model of attachment system functioning in adulthood: see figure! -attachment system activation in adulthood (Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver, 2002): lexical decision task (show words; prime -> mask -> target, word or non-word); threat -> faster RTs to attachment figure names (not others); attachment anxiety -> faster RTs to attachment figure names in general (hyperactivation); attachment avoidance -> slower RTs after ‘separation’ threat (deactivation)! -avoidance: rejecting/ neglectful care; no genetic component; suppress emotions, self-reliance, defensive discomfort with intimacy! -anxiety: inconsistent/ overprotective care; 40% heritable; clingy, fear abandonment, difficulty regulating emotions! -attachment & affect regulation! • security: inner resource for regulating affect, seek support when needed! • avoidance (deactivation): suppress emotional experience & expression (e.g. Sadikaj et al., 2011); cope using interpersonal distance & self-reliance; self-esteem may depend on being independent! • anxiety (hyperactivation): experience & express emotions intensely (e.g. Sadikaj et al., 2011); cope using interpersonal closeness & dependence; self-esteem unstable, may depend on approval/ affection from others! -Sadikaj, Moskowitz & Zuroff (2011): to assess emotional response to everyday social interactions; 113 working adults in USA; attachment questionnaire (anxiety, avoidance scores) + reported every social interaction >5 min for 20 days, M=120 completed (how others behaved, partners (sig effect of anxiety on -ve affect, higher attachment anxiety higher -ve affect; but others non-sig), remained sig when the Big Five traits were controlled; patterns largely replicate with selfesteem as DV (Hepper & Carnelley, 2012)! -attachment & mental health: underlying insecurity is risk factor, but hv specific patterns, with evidence cross-sectional & longitudinal, clinical & non-clinical! • avoidance (deactivation): eating disorders (restrictive), depression (over-reliance on self)!

• anxiety (hyperactivation): anxiety disorders, eating disorders (bingeing), depression (overreliance on others), borderline personality disorder! -higher levels of avoidance in romantic relationships (Hepper & Carnelley, 2012): less likely to get involved in relationships + less self-disclosure & emotional expression + low support-seeking (e.g. Simpson et al., 1992) + less sensitive support provision + less satisfied, committed & trusting + linked to ludus love style (Lee, 1976)! -Simpson, Rholes & Nelligan (1992): to observe real support-seeking beh in couples using 83 dating couples; attachment questionnaire (anxiety, avoidance scores) + female participant taken to waiting room, joined by partner, left alone for 5min; exposed to a situation tht arouse considerable anxiety & distress; participants’ feelings & beh rated by coders, found tht attachment anxiety was unrelated to support-seeking + as observed fear increased, secure women showed more support-seeking but more avoidant women showed less support-seeking + the 16 women who x mention the stressful situation were more avoidant! -higher levels of attachment anxiety in romantic relationships (Hepper & Carnelley, 2012): commit quickly to a new relationship + compulsive (not sensitive) caregiver + interpret partner’s beh negatively + more jealousy (e.g. Marshall et al., 2013) + more conflict, caused by chronic need for intimacy & excessive reassurance-seeking + linked to mania love style (Lee, 1976)! -is attachment insecurity evolutionarily adaptive?! • attachment theory: insecure strategies develop to maximise protection & survival in infancy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)! • social defence theory: adaptive for grps to include insecure as well as secure members to deal avoidance: rapid fight or flight beh -> faster action! -changing attachment style: anxiety levels decrease with age (Klohnen & John, 1994); avoidance levels r lower when in a long-term relationship (but causality?); security levels decrease after a break-up (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994) but increase across the transition to motherhood (Simpson et al., 2003); relationship with secure partner or therapist (Bowlby, 1988); security can be primed subliminally, activating secure base representations, which reduces state insecurity & influences info processing (Mikulincer et al., 2001; Carnelley & Rowe, 2007)! -summary: core claims of attachment theory apply to some elements of adult romantic & peer relationships; individual diff in attachment anxiety & avoidance relate to diff in personality & adjustment; attachment insecurity impacts romantic relationships in theory-consistent ways but may hv adaptive features; attachment patterns differ across relationships & time n can be changed via new relationships, therapy or priming!

Lecture 5 Intelligence & Emotional Intelligence! -learning outcome! • discuss & contrast theories of the definition & structure of intelligence and emotional intelligence! • assess the reliability & validity of intelligence/ EI tests! • discuss evidence for genetic/ environmental causes of intelligence/ EI! • relate EI to other models of intelligence and personality! -implicit theories of intelligence: western culture= practical problem-solving + verbal ability + social competence + ability to connect/ compare + goal orientation + fluid thought + adapts to environment; eastern culture= solve prob by considering other ppl + interpersonal harmony + responsive to social/ contextual changes + self-awareness + modesty! -Charles Spearman (1904): factor analysis on several diff tests in schoolchildren; ‘g’= general intelligence underlying positive correlation btn diff abilities; ’s’= special abilities as correlation is not r =1 [1 factor]! -Louis Thurstone (1938): also used factor analysis but concluded tht ‘g’ only reflected correlation btn diff abilities; 7 basic factors: associative memory + number + perceptual speed + reasoning + spatial visualisation + verbal comprehension + word fluency [7 factors] [Cattell 2 factors, Gf= fluid intelligence, Gc= crystallised intelligence; Guilford 150 factors]! -intelligence tests: historically, tasks matched to child’s developmental age (Binet & Simon, 1905); current dominant tests: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale/ WAIS (1955, 2008), Raven’s Progressive Matrices (1938)! -standardised IQ scores= test score ÷ expected score for age x 100 (gifted= top 0.1%)! -reliability & validity of IQ tests: test-retest reliability= typically high but x perfect (age 11-77: r=.73; Deary et al., 2000); predictive validity= job/ academic performance (r~.50); discriminant validity: learned experiences e.g. vocab + test-taking skills & practice + motivation/ incentive! -where does IQ come from: genetics explains 40-80% of variance (Neisser, 1996), varies btn individuals & increases with age; shared environment explains 20-40% of variance in childhood IQ but drops to 0% by adulthood; non-shared environment also influential, prenatal factors & early nutrition (Oddy et al., 2004) + birth order, first-borns may get more time & resources + skl education increases IQ test scores (Ceci, 1991)! -is intelligence modifiable (‘mozart effect’)! • Rauscher, Shaw & Ky (1993): 10 min of Mozart sonata (vs silence or other music) led to 8-9 pts higher on spatial-temporal parts of IQ test! • subsequent studies contradictory results! • Pietschnig et al. (2010) meta-analysis: mozart effect sig but small & temporary + may reflect positive mood & levels of cortical arousal + larger effects in studies conducted by original researchers! -Gardner (1993)’s multiple intelligence: theoretically independent; Teele Multiple Intelligences Inventory: not well validated e.g. ‘I play music in my head’; Visser, Ashton & Vernon (2006): assessed each intelligence with 2 tests, factor analysis showed 1 ‘g’ factor, all tests except for bodilykinaesthetic & musical & one interpersonal (least cognitive) loaded onto ‘g’, supported hierarchical structure but NOT independence! -emotional intelligence: the ability to perceive, understand, n manage emotions in the self & others; diff definitions/ theoretical perspectives: ability (the ability to monitor one’s own n others’ feelings n emotions, to discriminate among them n use this info to guide one’s thinking n actions),

trait (a constellation of beh dispositions & self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognise, process, n utilise emotion-laden info)!

-MSCEIT reliability & validity: high internal consistency & test-retest reliability; hierarchical factor structure; consensus (how much u agree with others in sampl...