class10.optimism
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