class10.optimism

January 5, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Science, Health Science, Immunology
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download class10.optimism...

Description

The Coping Sequence Stressor

Moderators

Primary Appraisal (Harm, Threat, Challenge)

Tangibles Social Support Other life stressors

External Resources and Impediments Internal Resources and Impediments Secondary Appraisal Coping Tasks/Goals Coping Outcomes

Moderators Typical coping style Other personality factors

Negative Affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen)

Defined: Pervasive negative mood marked by anxiety, depression, and hostility. Find many situations difficult to manage

Resort to unhealthy coping behaviors (such as?) Related to poor health: asthma, arthritis, ulcers, headaches, CHD Related to excess complaining:

a. b. c. d.

More symptoms Higher use of health services Higher rates of self-reported illness These people may compromise validity of self-reported illness

Class 10 Optimism, Part II

Announcements: Read Kriegel Falling Into Life for Next Thurs.

About Reading Research Articles 1. Focus on Introduction and Discussion 2. Skim "Methods", know what was done. 3. Skip over "Results" section

Hardiness

Commitment: Get fully involved Control: Strong internal Locus of Control (LOC) Challenge: Seek out opportunities, meet challenges head on. Why would these qualities moderate stress? Appraisal processes Active, not avoidant

Hardiness and Executives Study Kobassa, 1979 Subjects: 160 execs. under high stress, per Holmes & Rahe scale

Group A (n = 86) experiences stress but no illness Group B (n = 75) experiences stress with illness Illness measured by self report. What distinguishes Group A from Group B? Kobassa sends execs questionnaire: a. Internal/external LOC b. Commitment to life challenges c. Change as challenge rather than threat. Responses confirm hardiness model: Control, commitment, challenge

Problems with this study?

Illness self reported (High NA?) Design is correlational

Relation Between Hardiness and Coping Kobasa, 1979 High Stress/ Low Illness

High Stress/ High Illness

CONTROL

Nihilism

Hardy

<

Not Hardy

External LOC

Hardy

<

Not Hardy

Powerlessness

Hardy

<

Not Hardy

Hardy

<

Not Hardy

Vegetativeness

Hardy

<

Not Hardy

Adventurousness

Hardy

>

Not Hardy

Commitment Alienation from Self Challenge

Self Efficacy Robt. Bandura

Efficacy, Stress, and Immunocompetence Background: Animals exposed to stressor (shock) Group A: Believes has control Group B: Believes has NO control

Outcome: Opioids in system Which animals produce MORE opioids?

Group B--No Control

Efficacy, Stress, and Immunocompetence Stress --> ______ _____ --> opiods ACTH path --> ______ adrenal stim --> cortisol depress it How do opioids affect immune system? ____________

Thus, X less control --> ___more stress

OR ___ less stress -->

X ___more opioids OR ___ less opioids --> ___ Immunocompetence OR X Immunocompromise ___

Physiology of Stress 1. SAM: Sympathetic-adrenomedullary

Event  cortex  hypothalamus  SNS  adrenal medulla   catecholamines  charged feeling increased BP, HR, etc. SAM Corresponds to Cannon's stress model

2. HPA: Hypothlamic-pituitary-adreocortical Event  cortex  hypothalamus  coritcotrophin releasing factor (CRF)  pituitary  adrencorticotropic hormone (ACTH)  adrenal cortex corticosteriods

 conserves carbos  reduces inflammation

HPA corresponds to Selye's stress model

Evidence that Efficacy Moderates Stress --> Illness Connection in Humans Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988 Predicted model: Failure --> stress --> opioids --> less pain --> (immunocompromise) Four groups: 1. Success, pain, opioid blocker 2. Success, pain, no opioid blocker 3. Failure, pain, opioid blocker 4. Failure, pain, no opioid blocker

Efficacy Manipulation High Efficacy Group

Low Efficacy Group

(2 X 7 + 15)

(2 X 7 + 15)

(9 X 8 - 12)

(9 X 8 - 12)

(73 - 15 X 3)

(73 - 15 X 3)

At own pace

At preset, and difficult, pace

40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70

High Efficacy Low Efficacy

Change in selfperceived math efficacy

Psychological Effects of Math-Test Manipulation 8

10

7

9

90 80

8

6

70

7 5

60

6

4

5

3

4

50 40 30

3

2

20

2 1

10

1

0

0

0 stress

Time Pressure

High Efficacy Condition Low Efficacy Condition

Percieved Impairment Due to Time Pressure

Opiate Blockage Purpose: If stress increases opiates, and opiates reduce pain, then X Low efficacy condition will have higher pain ___High efficacy OR ___ thresholds (i.e., be better able to withstand pain longer)? HOWEVER, if opiates are blocked, which group should have higher pain X High efficacy OR ___ Low efficacy? thresholds, ____ To show this, need to block opiates to some subjects Naloxone: Opiate antagonist; 100% effective Subs get Naloxone or saline. Why saline?

Experiment Design and Predictions

High Efficacy Low Efficacy

Saline (Placebo) Blocker)

Naloxone (Opiate

Moderate

Moderate

High Tolerance

Low Tolerance

Pain Threshold (Ability to Tolerate Hand in Freezing Water)

Evidence that Efficacy Moderates Stress --> Illness Connection in Humans Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988

Pain Tolerance

25 20

Placebo Blocker

15 10 5 0

High Efficacy

Low Efficacy

Health Outcomes Questions 1. Compared to most other college students, what is your risk of an alcoholrelated injury? Much Below Average

Below Average

Slightly Below Average

Average for Rutgers students

Slightly Above Average

Above Average

Much Above Average

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

2. Compared to most other college students, what is your risk of getting into a car accident? Much Below Average

Below Average

Slightly Below Average

Average for Rutgers students

Slightly Above Average

Above Average

Much Above Average

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

Denial and Coping Psychological defense: Minimize or deny existence of threat Is denial good or bad?

Good* Early in crisis _______ Bad Chronic (ongoing) _______

On-going denial can stop people from taking necessary action. NMAD = Near Miss Asthma Death Who denies more:

X Asthmatics who experienced NMAD ___ ___ Regular Asthmatics ___ Non Asthmatics * Sometimes

Denial Among NMAD Survivors, “Regular” Asthmatics, and Non-Asthmatics Yellowlees & Ruffin, 1989

5

Denial Level

4 3 2 1 0 NMAD

Regular Asthma

Normals

Denial and Health Indices Among NMAD Survivors with or without Pre-existing Psychological Problems

Rating

Yellowlees & Ruffin, 1989 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 GHQ

MHQ

QOL Psych. Probs.

HYPERVENT Normals

DENIAL

Evidence of Improved Marital Relations Following NMAD (????) “He has been less violent since the attack. He plays with me now by twisting my arm up my back as a joke

rather than by badly bruising me”.

Optimists vs. Pessimists Optimists 1. Expect positive outcomes 2. Expect to cope with adversity Pessimists 1. Expect negative outcomes 2. Do not expect to cope with adversity

Pessimistic vs. Optimistic Attribution Styles Joe Pessi

Robert Optiheimer

I bombed the math test.

I bombed the math test.

I just couldn't get myself to study.

All the noise outside my apartment made it hard to study

A

I don't have good math ability, is what it is.

I didn't really try as hard as I could have.

B

Basically, I'm just not academically skilled.

Math is my one weak area.

C

A. Internal vs. External Cause B. Stable vs. Transitory Cause C. Global vs. Specific Cause

Optimistic and Pessimistic Explanatory Styles Success

Failure

Internal Cause

Optimist

Pessimist

External Cause

Pessimist

Optimist

Stable Cause

Optimist

Pessimist

Transitory Cause

Pessimist

Optimist

Explanatory Causes and Styles I won the tennis match because my opponent wasn’t trying hard. X External cause ___Internal cause ___ I lost my keys because I'm such a flake. X ___Internal cause ___ External cause I showed up late for my date because I didn’t plan far enough in advance.. X Transitory Cause ___ Stable Cause ___ I showed up late for my date because I am so bad at planning. X Stable Cause ___ ___ Transitory Cause My cholesterol went up because I’m not exercising. X Specific Cause ___ ___ Global Cause

My cholesterol went up because I’m a lazy slob. X Global Cause ___ Specific Cause ___

Optimism Measure Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994) 1. 2. 3. 4.

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. It's easy for me to relax. (Filler item) If something can go wrong for me, it will. * I'm always optimistic about my future.

5. 6. 7.

I enjoy my friends a lot. (Filler item) It's important for me to keep busy. (Filler item) I hardly ever expect things to go my way. *

8.

I don't get upset too easily. (Filler item)

9. 10.

I rarely count on good things happening to me.* Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.

Kurt Lewin: Morale, Not Simply Optimism

Diagnosed with heart disease risk

Hope

I will improve heart health

Morale Diagnosed with heart disease risk

I’ll sign up at a gym I’ll change diet

I’ll meet MD every 3 mos

I will improve heart health

C. Synder "Hope" Measure (Really a Measure of Morale) P _____ 1. I can think of many ways to get out of a jam. A _____ 2. I energetically pursue my goals. F _____ 3. I feel tired most of the time. P _____ 4. There are lots of ways around any problem. F _____ 5. I am easily downed in an argument. P _____ 6. I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me. F _____ 7. I worry about my health. P _____ 8. Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve my problem. A _____ 9. My past experiences have prepared me well for my future. A _____10. I've been pretty successful in life. F _____11. I usually find myself worrying about something. A _____12. I meet the goals that I set for myself. -------------------------A = Agency F = Filler P = Pathways

Optimism, Pessimism, and Ambulatory BP Raikkonen, et al. (1999)

Prediction: Optimism and trait anxiety  increased ambulatory BP Subjects: 100 volunteers, 50% female, ave. age = 37 80% white, 10% black, 10% other Procedure 1. Pre-assessment a. Resting BP b. Complete survey battery 1. Optimism (LOT) 2. Trait anxiety 3. Other background 2. Daily Monitoring a. Wear BP device, 3 days, activates every 30” b. Daily diary: Mood, Context (where, what doing,...)

Results of Raikkonen, et al. (1999) 1. Optimism Pessimists have higher BP Mood affects only optimists 2. Trait Anxiety High anxious  higher BP Mood affects only low anxious

170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80

Pos Mood Neg Mood

Pessimists

Optimists

3. Conclusions Fabricated Data for Illustration a. Results real, not due to posture, activity, etc. b. Chronic high BP is a health risk: can lead to hypertension c. Pessimists and high anxious may be at greater long-term health risk d. NA is a real health risk, not just a “whining” artifact.

Is Optimism Always a Good Thing?

Illusion of Invulnerability

Defined: Belief that one is immune from bad events, or that one will not be injured or harmed even when taking risks. Arises from: 1. Easier to think up things that reduce risk than things that increase risk. 2. Lack of info about others' risk prevention efforts. 3. Egocentric dismissal of other's efforts to reduce risk.

Weinstein Unrealistic Optimism Study GROUP 1 COMPLETE INFO.: ABOUT ME AND ABOUT OTHERS Your Risk Factor for Heart Attack 1. Cigarettes smoked per week 2. # Family members with heart ailments 3. Hours of exercise per week

Me _____ _____ _____

GROUP 2 PARTIAL INFO: ABOUT ME ONLY, NO COMPARISON TO OTHERS Your Risk Factor for Heart Attack Me 1. Cigarettes smoked per week _____ 2. # Family members with heart ailments _____ 3. Hours of exercise per week _____ GROUP 3 NO INFO: NO TRACKING OF SELF, NO COMPARISON TO OTHERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Others (8) (2) (3)

Others ? ? ?

Weinstein Unrealistic Optimism Study All subjects next answer the following question: Compared to other Rutgers students of my sex, my chances of having a heart attack are:

Much Below Average -3

Below Average

Slightly Below Average

Average for Rutgers students

Slightly Above Average

Above Average

Much Above Average

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

Results of Weinstein Study 2

1 Complete Info Partial Info No Info

0

-1

-2 Heart Attack

Tooth Decay

Health Outcomes Questions 1. Compared to most other college students, what is your risk of an alcoholrelated injury? Much Below Average

Below Average

Slightly Below Average

Average for Rutgers students

Slightly Above Average

Above Average

Much Above Average

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

2. Compared to most other college students, what is your risk of getting into a car accident? Much Below Average

Below Average

Slightly Below Average

Average for Rutgers students

Slightly Above Average

Above Average

Much Above Average

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

Risk of Alcohol Injury, Compared to Most Students 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Much Below

Below

Slightly Below

Average

Slightly Above

Above

Much Above

n = 48 Mean = 2.46 Median = 2.00 Mode = 1 SD = 1.64

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF