Psych Midterm #3

How is bipolar disorder different from unipolar depression?

Bipolar disorder includes either mania or hypomania, neither of which is present in depression. The depressive episodes seen in bipolar disorder are similar to those seen in unipolar depression.Bipolar disorder has a stronger genetic component (as evidenced by metrics like higher heritability) and more genetic overlap with disorders like schizophrenia than with depression. Bipolar disorder is seen as a life-long disorder (someone can be in remission from bipolar disorder), while depression can either be chronic/recurrent or single-episode.

What is dual-process theory? What is the difference between system 1 and system 2?

Dual-process theory is the proposal that judgment involves two types of thinking: a fast, efficient, but sometimes faulty set of strategies (ie. system 1), and a slower, more laborious, but less risky set of strategies (ie. system 2). System 1 is automatic thinking. A lot of heuristics we have such as availability heuristics and representative heuristics result from system 1 thinking. System 2 is effortful thinking. Evidence shows that people are more likely to use system 2 thinking when the problem is easily quantified. For example, some argue that people tend to be relatively sophisticated when thinking about sporting events. In such cases, each player's performance is easily assessed via the game's score or a race's outcome, and each contest is immediately understood as a "sample" that may or may not be a good indicator of a player's (or team's) overall quality.

Describe the Ekman (1980) study of facial expressions, its conclusions, and how we might qualify them.

Ekman studied the universality of facial expressions by having Westerners interpret facial expressions by people in Papua New Guinea and vice versa. He found that many facial expressions were recognized across cultures, albeit some more than others (see pages 491-492). It was concluded that emotions are recognized across cultures. While this is often true, it's important to remember that cultures have different rules for displaying emotions, often called display rules.By any account, however, emotions are powerful motivating forces in all cultures.

What are some of the different potential causal factors of mental disorders, and what do they tell us about the nature of mental illness?

Examples include: biological factors (genetic,neurobiological), social factors (interpersonal, cultural),psychological factors (behavioral, cognitive, and emotional),and developmental factors. These factors help explain why different people put in the same situation or experience can have different outcomes, and show that mental illness doesn't have one single cause.

What are the Big Five personality factors? How are they measured? How are they useful in describing a person?

Extroversion, neuroticism (or emotional instability),agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. (The usual acronym is "OCEAN", if that helps) They can be measured through self-report or informant data -- both contribute unique and important information about a person's behavior. The big five are dimensions, and so by specifying different levels of each dimension,they allow for the description of any combination of personality traits. These factors can be thought of as hierarchical, meaning that each factor is made up of facets, which can be summarized as behavioral tendencies, which can be measured as specific behaviors.

Shepher (1983) conducted a famous study that we did not talk about in class. He surveyed thousands of children raised on kibbutzim(collective farms) in Israel. The children -- who were not related to one another by blood -- were reared communally, with the hope that they would grow up to marry each other and carry on the kibbutzim. As it turned out, almost none of the children (on the order of 14 out of2800 -- or zero, depending on what you count) grew up to marry people that they had been reared with. Based on what we have learned in class, why did this probably happen?

This is likely a result of an evolved system for detecting kin that prevents incest. We learned in class that we do not feel sexual attraction to siblings, but this is primarily learned in childhood from being raised together. Thus, even though the children raised on the kibbutzim were not siblings by blood, they had the psychological experience of being raised together and therefore were not attracted to each other as adults. This is an example of a very reasonable,adaptive psychological system "failing" because we no longer exist in the same context in which it evolved.

Conformity is a common feature of real-world groups, and sometimes can be problematic. Based on Asch's study, what are two factors that affect conformity levels?

Two features that clearly affect conformity levels are group size and the presence of dissenters. Conformity becomes more likely as groups get larger. It becomes less likely when at least one other person defies the group norm, even if they are also wrong, just in a different way than the group is.

According to Adam Grant, what is a good way to spot "takers"?

We can ask people questions such as "what percentage of people in the company steals from their employers?" People have projection bias, which means, when asked to estimate others' behaviors, people reflect on their own behaviors and ask "what have I done or what would I do"? They then use this information as a basis for projecting others' behaviors. Therefore, people who steal from their employers tend to report a higher estimate than people who don't.

What is "flow"?

"Flow" is a state when individuals are fully engaged in what they are doing at the moment that they lose themselves in their work, possibly even becoming temporarily unaware of hunger, thirst, or even the passage of time. Csikszentmihalyi has found that flow is most likely to be experienced when there is an optimal balance between the challenge presented by an activity and one's skills to meet that challenge. If the level of challenge is too low for one's ability, one feels bored. If the level of challenge is too high for one's ability, one feels anxiety. But if the challenge is just right— and one feels that the activity is voluntarily chosen—one may experience flow.

Imagine there is a 1 in 201 prevalence of morbus nose syndrome among people like you. You are planning to take a diagnostic test that has a 20% false positive rate (that tells you you're sick when you're not) and a 0% false negative rate (telling you you're healthy when you're not). The test comes out positive. Uh-oh! How worried should you be about your nose?

1 actually has it. 40 people actually do NOT have it (20%) 160 actually have it 1/41 people diagnosed actually have it

Describe the treatment for bulimia based on the psychological model that Dr. Ruscio outlined in lecture.

1. Establishing a regular eating pattern - counteracts the dietary restriction that puts the individual at risk for binge eating and purging 2. Psycho education - helps the individual to understand healthy eating patterns and how binging and purging will not be effective in producing his/her desired weight/shape 3. Changing maladaptive beliefs about shape and weight 4. Teaching problem-solving skills - provides the individual with adaptive skills to cope with stress so that they are less likely to binge eat and purge as a way to counteract stress

Adam Grant asks people to do an exercise called "run a reciprocity ring," where people have to ask for help and others offer a way (resources or connection) to help. What are the benefits of this exercise?

1. This exercise gets people comfortable with asking for help. Asking for help and receiving favors is different from taking. We all need help at some point. There have to be receivers for there to be givers. This exercise will help us build a culture of help seeking.2. Takers are forced to act as givers in this exercise. This exercise moves both takers and givers more towards the "giving" side.3. This exercise helps people realize that we are all better off if everybody is a giver.

Zimbardo studied why ordinary people are capable of doing evil things on a large scale and summarized the factors that encourage such behaviors. What are some of the factors? Can you think of areal-world example?

1. start with an ideology 2. start with small, insignificant-seeming steps 3. person in charge appears just (or does at first) 4. rules vague; words used in new ways 5. highlight models of compliance 6. allow some verbal dissent, but enforce behavioral compliance . make it hard to exit One example: Jonestown. The leader of Jonestown, Jim Jones, advocated communism and egalitarianism, which gained support from influential political figures at the time. So the group had a reasonable ideology to fight for that seemed worthwhile. At the beginning, people in the group were only asked to do small things such as going to the Church,making small donations, helpful social projects etc. The leader gradually increased the magnitude of the requests. The group relocated to Guyana. This relocation, among other things, isolated people and made it hard for them to exit the group.

According to Adam Grant, what can we learn from Adam Rifkin, who based on data from LinkedIn, is the best networker? (he's "Linked" to the greatest number of very influential people.) More generally, how can we be a better "giver"?

Adam Rifkin does a lot of small favors that benefit others a great deal with a low cost to the self (i.e. 5-minute favors). For example Adam Rifkin makes a lot of introductions between people who would benefit from knowing each other. This doesn't take a lot of his time, but it will potentially help others a lot.Adam Rifkin is better at helping others in some ways than others. For example, he has a wide network and can introduce people to each other. He developed this specific way of helping people and he sticks with it. He doesn't comply every request indiscriminately. For example, he received a lot of requests for reviewing business plans for other people and chooses to decline such requests. The lesson is that you should help others in a way that utilizes your strength so that you can help others efficiently.

Are all human behaviors and physical features that are shaped by natural selection evolutionarily advantageous? Give examples of behaviors and physical features that may have provided an evolutionary advantage and those that probably haven't.

Although many of our behaviors and physical features may have provided an evolutionary advantage, this isn't the case for all of them. For example, our spines are not structured particularly well for walking upright, but they still developed through natural selection. On the other hand, we consider some tendencies and physical ailments to be merely harmful, but they may actually confer an evolutionary advantage. For example, sickle-cell anemia protects against malaria,children's tendency to refuse new foods may protect them during a sensitive developmental stage, and a pregnant woman's morning sickness may protect the fetus from toxins at a particularly vulnerable time.

How are armies related to the prisoner's dilemma problem?

Armies are generally used to attack other countries and to defend against other countries' attacks. The bigger your army gets, the bigger my army has to be to defend against your attacks. This is very costly. Of course, if you have no army at all, I could invade your lands and steal your bananas, which is an ideal result for me. And vice versa: if I have no army, you can come in and steal my apples,which are delicious, so this would be ideal for you. However, if we could coordinate a reliable truce, we could both live in relative peace and spend all the money that it takes to maintain an army on other things like universal health care or sports cars. This, averaged over both of us, is the ideal resolution. However, like the prisoner's dilemma, it is difficult to coordinate all parties to go along with an initially sub-optimal result and trust that everyone else will do the same.

Describe the symptoms of autism as well as the reasons why diagnosis of the disorder is so difficult

Autism is a disorder usually diagnosed in young children that is characterized by a wide range of developmental problems including restricted or repetitive behavior patterns, abnormal socialization, and abnormal communication. Diagnosing autism can be difficult, since there is no simple test to diagnose the disorder. Rather, clinicians observe the child's behavior and development to make a diagnosis. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that there is huge variation among normal children in domains like language which are typically affected by autism. For example, at 18 months the mean spoken vocabulary is 100 words (1 SD above ~250 words, 1 SD below =0 words). Because of the large amount of normal variation in language expression, it is difficult to determine which children experience language deficits that are actually the result of autism.

How do between-group differences and within-group differences relate to intelligence? Are there any differences between men and women's performance on cognitive tasks?

Between group differences might reflect environmental factors,while within-group differences might reflect genetic variation. Men*tend* to perform better on visuospatial tasks. Women *tend* to perform better than men on certain verbal tasks, especially those that require clear and fluent writing. These comparisons are likely over simplifications; for example, although men tend to achieve (on average) higher scores on the math portion of SATs, the advantage for men is clearer for tests of spatial relations or geometry, while women seem to outperform men on tests emphasizing geometry. Different theories have been proposed to explain sex differences in performance on certain tests of intelligence, including biological, evolutionary,cultural, and social factors.

What things should we consider when trying to distinguish between normal and abnormal behavior?

Big picture: Abnormality is hard to define. Many disorders do not have hard and fast "edges" that cleanly separate those who have the disorder from those who don't. Some questions that are relevant to this determination are: Does the person show an extreme version of a normal behavior? Is the person suffering? Is the behavior bothering others or does it make others uncomfortable? Does it bother the person? Is the behavior maladaptive? Does it interfere with the person's wellbeing in a significant way? Is the behavior statistically deviant or rare? Does the behavior violate societal standards? No one element or definition separates all cases of abnormality from all cases of normality. Many things that are common are abnormal (e.g. common cold), and many things that are rare are not considered abnormal (e.g. perfect pitch).

What is the distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence? (Textbook P432)

Both fluid and crystallized intelligence take their place at the middle level of the intelligence hierarchy, alongside of verbal,quantitative, and spatial skills (Please see Figure 11.6 on textbookP431). Fluid intelligence refers to the ability to deal with new and unusual problems. It involves the deliberate and controlled use of mental operations and is the form of intelligence you need when you have no well-practiced routines you can bring to bear on a problem. Fluid intelligence generally reaches its height in early adulthood and declines steadily with age.Crystallized intelligence refers to your acquired knowledge. This includes your verbal knowledge and your broad repertoire of skills--skills useful for dealing with problems similar to those already encountered. Crystallized intelligence seems to increase with age--as long as the individual remains in an intellectually stimulating environment.Many factors such as alcohol consumption, fatigue, depression, and some forms of brain damage cause more impairment in tasks requiring fluid intelligence than in those dependent on crystallized intelligence.

What do we know about the social nature of children vs that of our closer relatives (chimpanzees, apes, etc)? Are there inter-species differences in helping behavior? In social intelligence?

By 12 months, kids seem to share the things they find interesting(they will point to something interesting until the person they are with and then looks back at them). Humans are uniquely predisposed to the social world. Comparisons of children (2.5 years old), chimps, and apes on tests of intelligence reveal that children outperform chimps and orang-utans on tasks of social intelligence, but not on tasks of physical intelligence (although both children and chimps were smarter than orangs on the latter tasks). We watched a video in which chimps beats kids on a hidden toy task because the kids pay attention to the(uninformative) social cues and the chimps watched the reward under the cups. This stood in contrast to the imitation task, in which a child quickly learned how to remove a balloon from a tube by watching and imitating an adult, while the chimps failed repeatedly because they could not mirror the human's behavior. As Professor Swingley summarized: "We do what others do the way they do it" and maybe this facilitates human intelligence, language, culture, etc.

What are causal attributions and what are the broad types they are often divided into? What impact do cultural differences have on the way people form attributions? Pages 506-510

Causal attributions are the inferences we make about what caused a person's behavior. Causal attributions are often divided into two broad types: those that focus on factors internal to the person(dispositional attributions - for example, John came late because he's disorganized) and those that focus on factors external to the person (situational attributions - for example, John came late because there was traffic and it's snowing outside). The attributions we make seem to be particularly influenced by whether we live in an individualistic culture (that emphasizes the rights and preferences of individuals) or a collectivistic culture (that emphasizes the maintaining of norms and traditions of families and other social groups). People in individualistic cultures tend to make dispositional attributions more often, while people in collectivistic cultures tend to make situational attributions more often (roughly speaking). We can observe this cultural difference in the fundamental attribution error (you should know what this is, as it has been the topic of recitations all semester), which tends to be made more often in individualistic cultures.

What is cognitive dissonance? How can it lead to attitude change?

Cognitive dissonance is defined as an aversive psychological state that arises due to a conflict between your beliefs/attitudes and actions, or between two beliefs/attitudes. It can lead to attitude change because we are motivated to eliminate this conflict, thereby reducing the experience of dissonance, and one way of doing this is by changing our attitudes. For instance, if you have engaged in a behavior that is inconsistent with your attitude, and there is no apparent sufficient justification for doing so, you can only resolve the conflict by changing your attitude, since the behavior cannot be "taken back."

How do depressed people's brains look compared to non-depressed individuals'? What are examples of cognitive differences between depressed and non-depressed individuals? What might they imply?

Compared to other disorders (e.g. schizophrenia), there are fewer gross anatomical differences between depressed and non-depressed individuals ~ current research has not found many ways in which the depressed brain "looks" different. That said, we know a great deal about the ways in which depressed individuals' brains seem to function differently than non-depressed individuals, including differences in: reward sensitivity or "liking" (depressed individuals exhibit impaired reward learning), motivation/anhedoniaor "wanting", attention, perception and memory. These differences imply that different aspects of brain functioning may play a role in the etiology and the maintenance of depression.

What is confirmation bias? Do you think it is problematic?

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that supports your preexisting beliefs, regardless of whether the information is true or diagnostic. Consequently, people will spend more time gathering favorable information (e.g., watching only liberal or conservative news); may recall remembered information selectively; and may interpret ambiguous information as though it favored their position.While we might debate whether it is okay to be biased in interpreting information, it is especially problematic to interpret neutral,ambiguous, or false information as though it supported your beliefs.

Explain the differences between conformity, obedience, and compliance.

Conformity is about matching our behaviors to those of others due to explicit or implicit social pressure. Obedience is not about matching others' behaviors, but rather about following a command from an authority figure of some kind. Compliance is conceptually similar, but is about changing our behaviors in response to a request, rather than a command with some force of authority.

What are some of the ways we treat depression?

Depression can be treated with both psychotherapy ("talk therapy",e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy etc) and pharmacotherapy ("drugs" - antidepressant medication). More severe depression that doesn't respond to first-line treatments can be treated with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and, if that fails,deep-brain stimulation (DBS).

Suppose a person is heterozygous, having one allele of a particular gene on one chromosome and a different allele of that gene on the other chromosome. What are the three types of interactions between the two alleles of a gene?

Dominance: A gene that directs the development of a particular characteristic even when the corresponding gene on the other chromosome is different. Example: dimples. If someone inherits from both parents that allele that favors dimples, this person is virtually certain to end up with dimples. If the person doesn't inherit this allele from either parent, this person won't have dimples. If the person inherits the allele that favors dimples from one parent but not from the other, the person will probably still have dimples because the allele for dimples is dominant. That is, it will exert its effect whether the other member of the gene pair is the same or not. In contrast, a recessive allele will affect the phenotype only if it matches the allele of its partner gene. Codominant: both genes in the pair affect the phenotype. Example: blood type. If the person inherits the allele favoring blood type A from one parent and the allele favoring blood type B from the other parent, the person will end up with type AB—expressing both genes. Incomplete dominance: A person with two different alleles will have a phenotype that is intermediate between types favored by each allele on its own. Example: serotonin transporter gene. The gene has two alleles that differ in the length of one part of the gene. A person can have a genotype of long/long, short/long, short/short. The long allele of this gene is incompletely dominant over the short allele. People with long/long genotype produce more serotonin transporter than do people with the short/long genotype; they, in turn, produce more serotonin transporter than do people with the short/short genotype.

What are Dunbar's correlation and Dunbar's number? Give two possible causal explanations for Dunbar's correlation

Dunbar's correlation is an observed positive correlation between social group size and the percentage of the brain accounted for by the neocortex, among primates. It means, in essence, that species with larger social groups have more of their brain dedicated to"higher" or more complex thinking processes.Dunbar's number is an estimate, based on the correlation, of the"natural" size of the human social group -- that is, how big a groupour ancestors evolved to live in. His estimate is about 150 individuals. Causal explanations:a. Greater amounts of neocortex (which presumably evolved for some other reason) cause species to live in larger groups because the neocortex allows the animal to keep track of complex social relations. b. Living in larger groups (which presumably conferred some survival advantage) causes species to evolve larger neocortices, presumably because living in larger groups requires the cognitive ability to keep track of complex social relations. (Note the subtle but important difference between a and b. This is the problem of reverse causation, as we learned in recitation.) c. Both group size and the neocortex grow together for some unrelated third reason. One possibility might be hunting. Perhaps primates that would benefit from hunting in groups also would benefit from"hunting smarter" and so these two traits (group size, relatively large neocortex) go together without one really causing the other.

What is evidence in support of schizophrenia being a neurodevelopmental disorder?

Evidence suggests that a genetic predisposition, a period of diminished oxygen supply to the newborn, and a variety of prenatal viral infections can contribute to schizophrenia. It is clear that there is a genetic contribution to schizophrenia. Schizophrenia runs in families. Evidence from twin and adoption studies also supports a sizable genetic component in the development of schizophrenia.Additionally, birth complications that lead to diminished oxygen supply to the baby have been associated with schizophrenia. Although diminished oxygen to the newborn is not enough to produce schizophrenia, it may be that restricted oxygen supply affects early brain development which interacts with a genetic vulnerability to produce schizophrenia. Finally, a mother's exposure to viral infections such as influenza during the second trimester of pregnancy may increase the likelihood that her child will develop schizophrenia. All of this evidence supports the notion that schizophrenia is a neurodevelopmental disorder. It may be that these risk factors cause the child's brain to develop abnormally from a very early age, eventually resulting in schizophrenia. In support of this view, precursors of schizophrenia (e.g., less emotional expression, unusual motor patterns) can be detected in early childhood.

What argument have evolutionary psychologists made regarding the sexual preferences of men and women?

Evolutionary psychologists argue that throughout our evolutionary history, women were forced to invest more resources in their offspring and therefore choose mates more carefully, whereas men were motivated o produce a large number of offspring without needing to provide many resources and therefore choose mates less carefully. This argument is supported by men's higher preference for short-term relationships and women's tendency to refuse men's propositions at a much higher rate than men (as was found in the curious study described in class, in which confederates asked students on campus whether they were interested in a date, in going to the confederate's apartment, or in sleeping with the confederate). Women's and men's tendency to feel more intensely jealous when faced with emotional unfaithfulness and physical unfaithfulness, respectively, also aligns with women's desire to protect their offspring's resources and men's desire to make sure that their resources are being used for their own offspring.

How do experts think differently from non-experts, and why?

Experts are better problem-solvers in their area of expertise (e.g.,seasoned doctors are better are making medical diagnoses than you orI). This problem-solving ability stems in large part from the wealth of domain-specific knowledge that an expert acquires. However, it is not just the quantity of knowledge that matters; experts also acquire a different quality of knowledge, which focuses on higher-order thinking and patterns. For example, while novice chess players focus on individual chess pieces when they play , chess masters think in "chunks" of 4-5 pieces that form strategic groupings. As we saw in one of the classes on Memory, this chunking can lead to surprising feats of memory: when presented with a full chessboard for5 seconds, grandmasters are able to recreate the positions of all the pieces nearly perfectly. Importantly, this effect only holds when the pieces are arranged according to the normal rules and conventions o fchess; when presented with illegal or bizarre moves on the board, the grandmasters actually remember the pieces less accurately than novices. This suggests that the grandmasters were not better pattern-recognizers per se, but rather had a superior conceptual/organizational knowledge of chess.

Describe the first line treatments for OCD described in lecture

Exposure and response prevention (EXRP) is a cognitive behavioral treatment. Individuals with OCD are exposed to the stimulus they fear and are then prevented from engaging in the compulsive behavior that neutralizes the obsession or intrusive thought. For example, if an individual with OCD is obsessed with contamination and frequently washes to prevent contamination, EXRP would involve having this individual touch a dirty surface and then not allow him/her to engage in the washing ritual. Another treatment for OCD is medication.Medications used to treat OCD work primarily by affecting serotonin levels and taking the "edge" off obsessions so that they are more tolerable. Studies that have compared EXRP to combined treatment (EXRP plus medication) have found no difference in outcomes between groups. Thus, there seems to be no added benefit of medication over and above EXRP, though for those who cannot initiate EXRP the medication can sometimes enable patients to do so.

What is the difference between inductive inference and deductive inference?

For inductive inference, you make the inference about the future based on your experience in the past. Inductive inference is not logically solid. You can't be sure about the inference. Just because things have been like this way in the past does not mean that things will remain the same in the future. But you may find such predictions about the future helpful when navigating the world. One example of inductive inference is, "I've always enjoyed spending time with Jane. Jane is coming over tonight. My judgment is that I will enjoy spending tonight with Jane." In this example, you draw a conclusion "I enjoy spending time with Jane" based on your previous experiences with Jane, and you apply this conclusion to an unknown future context: "therefore I will enjoy spending time with Jane tonight". This is an extrapolation. There is no guarantee that you will enjoy spending time with Jane tonight. For deductive inference, you derive new assertions based on assertions already in place. There is no uncertainty. If you don't make logical errors, there is a guarantee that you will come to the right conclusion. One example of deductive inference is, "if it's raining, then today's picnic will be canceled," AND "it is raining," then you know "today's picnic will be canceled." Here you can be sure about the conclusion you draw based on the premises. (lecture, textbook p348)

Give an evolutionary explanation for why a man might be particularly jealous when his wife or girlfriend flirts with another man.

From an evolutionary perspective, men always face "parental uncertainty" when their mate gives birth. In other words, it is always possible that the child is not the man's. Therefore, it is adaptive for a man to prevent his sexual partner from spending time with other men, because if she has sex with another man, he might end up investing resources in a child that shares none of his genes.This doesn't mean that women aren't bothered by male sexual infidelity, which is disturbing to most people. The prediction is that men should be more bothered by it. The complementary prediction is that women would be particularly (i.e., more then men) disturbed bye emotional infidelity, distancing from the relationship, and so on.Question to ponder: Who, men or women, would be expected to demand of their partner that he or she "put a ring on it"? And literally, who wants whom to be wearing a ring, as a public affirmation? Who wears the fancier wedding/engagement ring and why?

What is gene expression?

Gene expression, stated simply, is when a gene produces the product it codes for, usually a protein. The gene "for" something doesn't just produce it in constant quantities all the time; it is triggered to produce things. Gene expression can be affected by many things:depending on the gene, expression might be affected by temperature,the organism's behavior, the organism's knowledge of its social environment, and so forth (p. 55). So genetics isn't just about which genes you "have"; it's also about which, when, and how genes are expressed.

What are the characteristics of individuals who employ the style that is overrepresented at the top of achievement that allow them to succeed?

Givers tend to learn more than takers and matchers because the time that they spend helping others gives them more expertise in various domains. Having this expertise also energizes them to think more creatively. They also enjoy a reputation advantage because people tend to root for them. However, givers often rely on matchers to help screen out the takers and to match their giving.

What is "grit", as defined by Angela Duckworth?

Grit is a personality trait. People with grit stick with the same goal over a long time. One aspect of grit is that people are passionate about the same thing and consistent with their interests over a long time. The other aspect of it is that people have high perseverance. The Stanford study of 300 high achievers found that they 1) tended not to abandon tasks for seeking novelty. That's part of grit: passion and long term interest. The study also found that high achievers 2) tended not to abandon tasks in the face of obstacles, i.e. they had high perseverance.

What are implicit theories of personality and how do they leadto the tendency to stereotype? How are stereotypes transmitted? Pages510-513

Implicit theories of personality are beliefs about the kinds of behaviors associated with particular traits and which traits usually go together. We develop them through our use of our schematic knowledge and we use them to make inferences about who people are and how they are likely to behave. While implicit theories of personality are helpful because they allow us to make predictions about people's behavior in an efficient manner, the use of broad,schematic thinking can also lead us to make generalizations (often negative ones) about social groups. These negative schemas used to categorize complex groups of people are stereotypes. Stereotypes can lead us to make incorrect judgments about the behavior of people in these social groups, and they also contribute to prejudice.Stereotypes are transmitted both explicitly and implicitly, and a real so shaped by our exposure to other groups - the less exposure we have to another group, the more likely we are to perceive that group as homogenous and to make generalizations about people in that group.This effect is called the out-group homogeneity effect.

What are implicit association tests and what have we learned from them?

In implicit association tests, participants are asked to press one key (like the A key) for a particular stimulus (e.g., North African or stereotypically Muslim names like Yusef) and another key (like the L key) for another stimulus (any other name). Next, they are asked to press the first key (A) for a positive word and the second key (L) for a negative word. They do this for a few dozen stimuli. They are then asked to switch --to press the second key (L) for a positive word and the first key (A) for the negative word. Using this test, researchers have found that most people are slower and more error-prone when a single response requires them to put harder-to-link ideas together, e.g. when they have to connect together a positive word with something for which they have a negative stereotype. Many of us apparently have implicit biases (for example, we more easily associate the North African name with 'bad' than 'good') against various types of minority groups. Members of some minority groups even have implicit biases about members of their own group (for example, around 50% of African Americans more easily associate 'bad' with African American names). One of the main points to take away from these studies is that attitudes are not single entities --it is possible to have implicit biases without engaging in explicit stereotyping or prejudice. There is also some evidence that we can intervene to prevent these biases.

Explain the ultimatum game and the dictator game.What do they have to do with fairness motivations?

In the ultimatum game, one player is given a fixed amount of money and offers any amount (including none) to the other player. The second player then accepts or rejects the offer. If they accept,both players take the money, but if they reject, no one gets any money.In the dictator game, one player is given a fixed amount of money and chooses how much (if any) to give to the other player, and the game ends. When the ultimatum game is played, it is common for the first player to offer half (or almost half) of the money to the second player.This could be due to a desire for fairness, but it could also be to prevent the second player from rejecting the offer. In other words,it could be a calculated move to avoid leaving the game with no money.The dictator game can determine which of these two possibilities is correct, because there is no risk of leaving with no money. As it turns out, the first player usually gives less than in the ultimatum game, but not zero, suggesting that both self-interest and fairness motivations are at play in the ultimatum game.

In Professor Duckworth's study, what predicted National Spelling Bee performance? Are these predictors related or independent?

Intelligence and deliberate practice (itself predicted by grit) both independently predicted how well kids performed in the spelling bee. Perhaps unexpectedly, she has found that grit and IQ are quite different; if anything, they are slightly negatively correlated, meaning that higher IQ people tended to have slightly less grit.

Imagine that while hiking in the woods, John sees a bear. John experiences fear. Explain the process by which the experience of fear is generated, according to each of the three theories of emotion discussed in your textbook.

James-Lange Theory: John sees the bear, and the sight prompts a physiological response in his body (primarily his autonomic nervous system) that is unique to fear. He interprets this bodily arousal as fear. Cannon-Bard: John sees the bear.This triggers brain activity that simultaneously causes non-specific autonomic arousal, and the subjective experience of fear. Schacter-Singer: John sees the bear, which causes non-specific bodily arousal. John then cognitively appraises the situation and determines that it is a fear-inducing situation, leading him to interpret the arousal as fear.

We discussed four mechanisms that could give rise to the emergence of altruism. Explain each one briefly.

Kin selection: we help people we are related to because they share our genes. From an evolutionary perspective, this is adaptive,because it helps our genes to survive and be passed on. Reciprocal altruism: we help others that we are likely to see again with the expectation that they will help us in the future as well. Group selection: natural selection may also act on groups as well as individuals, such that groups in which genes for altruism are common will out-compete groups in which such genes are rare, leading to the overall survival of altruistic genes (though this idea is somewhat controversial) Cheater detection: to prevent people from "loafing" in situations that require cooperation, we have a desire to punish people who loaf (or otherwise fail to hold up their societally determined end of things).This contributes to cooperation by making failure to cooperate"expensive".

Is anything known about the developmental course of psychopathology?

Looking back at the developmental course of persons with mental illness, we see that symptoms of mental illness were often present early in life (as early as 5-11 years old), and that the disorders individuals experienced later in life were not always the same as the ones they presented with early in life.

Milgram examined factors that could potentially reduce conformity rates. Which factors were and were NOT effective in reducing conformity? What is the general lesson to learn from Milgram and Asch's studies on conformity?

Milgram's studies examined factors such as gender (whether women were more compliant than men), the location of the experiment (whether participants would be less compliant if the experiment did not occur in a prestigious university like Yale) and did not find such factors to be very effective.In one condition, the experimenter phoned it in, instead of being physically present during the study. In another condition, the teacher(participant) was physically forcing the learner to take the shock. These two factors were reasonably effective, i.e. subjects complied less. The most effective way to reduce conformity rate is to have another teacher (a confederate in the study) walk out of the experiment.Such findings show the power of dissent and suggest that people need a model for resisting authority.

What is the difference between monogamy and polygamy? What are polygyny and polyandry? What accounts for these differences in mating systems?

Monogamy is the mating pattern in which a long-term reproductive partnership is formed by one female and one male. Polygamy is an alternative mating system in which one male (polygyny) or one female(polyandry) mates with several members of the opposite sex. These differences can be explained in part by needs and mating strategies of each parent. For example, in birds, a male and a female are both required to rear a baby chick: one to sit on the eggs and the other to forage for food. In this case, monogamy makes sense, as it allows both birds to rely on each other to raise the chick. On the other hand,most mammals do not require a nest (the fetus is kept inside a womb instead) and thus one parent is sufficient to rear offspring. In this case, one sex (usually males) adopt the strategy of mating with as many partners as possible, while the other sex (generally females)focuses on ensuring the growth of just a few offspring. (according to the text, p. 76, most human societies are polygynous. That said,industrialized societies tend to be monogamous.

What is the idea of natural selection? What are the three principles behind evolution?

Natural selection is the mechanism that drives biological evolution. It refers to the greater likelihood of successful reproduction for organisms whose attributes are advantageous in a given environment. Three principles:First, there must be variation among the individuals within a populationSecond, certain of the variants must survive and reproduce at higher rates than others.Third, the traits associated with this superior survival and reproduction must be passed from parents to offspring

Explain one study that shows that we believe that other people notice and understand us more than they actually do. How does it show this?

Newton & Ross: participants selected a song from a list of 25 and tapped out the rhythm on a table. They expected that their partnerswould guess the song correctly about 50% of the time, whereas theactual rate of correct guesses was about 2.5%. The participants tapping the rhythm thought that what they were doing was far more transparent than did their partners. Gilovich et al.: Participants drank three identical-looking glasses of liquid. Two contained fruit punch and one contained a dyed pickle/vinegar brine. They were instructed to hide their reactions to each one. They expected that observers would still be able to tell which was the vinegar brine, but in reality, the observers only guessed correctly at chance levels (i.e.,about one third of the time). The famous t-shirt study: Participants were told to wear an embarrassing t-shirt featuring a large, prominent picture of singer Barry Manilow, and then were sent down the hall where a group of people were filling out surveys. After leaving the room, they predicted how many people in the room had noticed their shirt. They predicted that about half of them had, whereas in reality, only about a quarter had. This demonstrates that we think people are paying much more attention to us than they really are.

What are some of the (relative differences) in mate preferences between men and women? Why might this be the case, from an evolutionary perspective?

On average, men care more about physical attractiveness in their partners than women do, whereas women care more about social status and wealth in their partners. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men do not make as great an investment in their offspring as women do (biologically, at the very least), but they should care about the health and fertility of the woman who will be bearing their child. The features that men generally find attractive in women are, it turns out, signals of such health and fertility. Women, on the other hand, have the most reproductive success by finding a mate who will invest resources in her and her offspring, and therefore should care relatively more about wealth and status in a partner. (though as we've seen and as you already know, status isn't everything.) Moreover, men tend to prefer slightly younger partners and women tend to prefer slightly older partners. This, too, makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: men do best, from a reproductive standpoint, by having as many children as they can. Younger women are more fertile and will remain fertile for longer, so this should be attractive to men. Women's preference for older mates is less obviously adaptive. It could be that age is typically correlated with status, and so this is really just another aspect of the preference for resources and status. It is important, of course, to keep in mind that there are important cultural contributions to these preferences as well, and there is reasonable debate about the degree to which such effects come about directly from the (partially innate) desires of individuals, versus being mediated by cultural influences whose origins are not simple to unravel.

Name some cues that determine when we start and stop eating. Why are there so many? Pages 467-469.

Our liver regulates the supply of glucose in our body and signals other organs about our need for glucose by sending hunger and satiety signals. Our stomach walls contain receptors sensitive to the nutrients dissolved in digestive juices that communicate the presence of nutrients for us to stop eating. Fatty tissues secrete leptin into the bloodstream when we are full, which inhibits appetite stimulating neurochemicals. The hypothalamus detects and responds to these cues (although there are other regulatory mechanisms). There are additional cues in addition to these. We probably have so many signals so that if one fails, we can survive. Additionally, some signals monitor our short-term needs while others monitor our long-term needs. Finally, the different cues monitor different aspects of our food intake

Generally speaking, what are "character strengths" as identified by Peterson and Seligman? What are their significance? (textbook P621-622)

Peterson and Seligman developed a taxonomy of character strengths, which are positive personality features. They are traits that contribute to a person's happiness without diminishing the happiness of others. (for example: traits concerning wisdom and knowledge, courage, justice, and so on.) Such positive traits appear to be associated with a number of important life outcomes, such as greater success at work, with friends, and in marriage (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). The strengths also matter for one's physiological functioning and health (Ryff et al., 2006; Salovey, Rothman, Detweiler, & Steward, 2000).

What is phenomenology? According to Maslow, what is self-actualization and what are the traits of self-actualizers?

Phenomenology is the study of individuals' own unique, first-person, conscious experience, which is central to humanistic psychology.Self-actualization is the full realization of one's potential. According to Maslow, self-actualizers were generally realistically oriented, accepted themselves and others, were spontaneous, cared more about the problems they were working on than about themselves, had intimate relationships with a few people rather than superficial relationships with many, and had democratic values. One of the major themes of humanistic psychology is that we each have within us the impulse to self-actualize.

When it was first reported in the news that none of Kitty Genovese's neighbors did anything to stop her attack, despite being able to see or hear it, many people lamented the lack of values among city-dwellers and the decay of America's moral fiber. Social psychologists instead proposed two alternative explanations. What are they?

Pluralistic ignorance: The situation was ambiguous, so the neighbors were unsure whether it was an emergency, or something more benign like a simple argument. Because they were unsure, they looked to each other's behavior to help them understand the situation. Since no one was intervening, they each concluded that it was not an emergency. Of course, everyone else's non-intervention was also due to hesitation and uncertainty, but it was interpreted as signaling that the situation was benign. Diffusion of responsibility: Even if the neighbors had realized that the situation was an emergency, they might each have individually felt that they did not need to intervene because there were many other people around, and therefore someone else would probably do it. Pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility can both produce this unfortunate "bystander effect" in which groups of people stand by in emergencies without helping, sometimes with tragic results.

What are some of the potential consequences of restricting the definitions of mental disorders to more severe diagnoses?

Research suggests that mild disorders are associated with important later life negative outcomes: including hospitalization,suicide attempts, work-disability, and the development of more serious disorders. Making definitions more restrictive would miss people at risk for developing more serious problems, and wouldn't allow for preventative treatment (given current insurance environment - to get treatment you must have something diagnosable).

What are two ways in which persuasion by others can help shape our attitudes? (hint: central and peripheral.) How can experience and our own behavior shape our attitudes? Pages 514-518

Researchers divide persuasion into two types based on the mode of processing information: 1) the central route to persuasion, in which we carefully track incoming information and consider the arguments being offered (the content of the persuasive message), and 2) the peripheral route to persuasion, in which we devote fewer cognitive resources to processing incoming information and are influenced by how and by whom the message is presented. We tend to use the central route if an issue matters to us (for example, deciding which college you should attend) and we're not distracted, and we tend to use the peripheral route when we don't care as much about an issue(for example, deciding which toothpaste to buy) or when we're distracted. This explains why having a supermodel pose with toothpaste encourages consumers to buy that particular brand, while having a supermodel pose in front of a college dorm might not be as effective.Experience, like intergroup contact, can shape our attitudes about a group of people, as in the Robbers Cave experiment described on pages515-516. Our behavior can also shape our attitudes when we encounter cognitive dissonance - an uncomfortable inconsistency among our actions, beliefs, attitudes, or feelings. We attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance by making our actions, beliefs, attitudes or feelings more consistent with one another. Hazing, for example, is unpleasant, but it results in individuals placing a higher value on group membership (and therefore changing their attitudes) perhaps because they need to justify the suffering they went through to achieve it. These patterns of behavior can also be explained by self-perception theory, the idea that we know our own attitudes and feelings only by observing our behaviors and deciding what probably caused them. In this case, someone who was hazed would have observed their behavior and figured that they must have really wanted to join the fraternity, otherwise they wouldn't have put up with all the suffering to do so.

What is the difference between romantic love and companionate love?

Romantic love is an intense, passionate love. It is characterized by idealization of the lover and feelings of being "carried away" or"swept off your feet". Romantic love is underpinned by both physical arousal (e.g., lust, fear, pain) and attitudes that lead a person to interpret this arousal as passion. This type of love tends to be short-lived (with studies suggesting that on average, men being quicker to fall in love, and women being quicker to fall out of love). In contrast, companionate love is a much gentler, more reflective kind of love, characterized by deep affection for someone whose life is deeply intertwined with one's own life. Unlike arousal-driven romantic love, companionate love is driven more by similar outlooks on life, trust, and mutual caring that tends to develop over longer periods of time.

Describe the positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder characterized by at least some of the following symptoms: marked disturbance of thought,withdrawal, inappropriate or flat emotions, delusions, and hallucinations. Schizophrenia is characterized by positive, negative,and cognitive symptoms. Positive symptoms are behaviors that are not evident in healthy people including delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized behavior. Negative symptoms reflect an absence of behaviors that are usually evident in healthy people. These include flattened affect, catatonic behavior, and social withdrawal. Finally cognitive symptoms reflect impairments in executive functions. These cognitive difficulties include impairments in early sensory processing, episodic memory, working memory and attentional control.

What is self-efficacy? What is its significance?

Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform the behaviors that will lead to particular outcomes (Bandura, 2001, 2006). When a person's sense of self-efficacy is high, she believes that she can behave in ways that will lead to rewarding outcomes. By contrast, when a person's sense of self-efficacy is low, she believes herself incapable, and she may not even try. High self-efficacy beliefs are associated with better social relationships, work, and health outcomes (Bandura, 1997; 2001; Maddux, 1995; Schwarzer, 1992). Likewise, self-efficacy beliefs about a particular task ("I'm sure I can do this!") are associated with success in that task. This attitude leads to more persistence and a greater tolerance of frustration, both of which contribute to better performance (Schunk, 1984, 1985).

What do anorexia and bulimia nervosa have in common? How are they different?

Similarities:Both anorexia and bulimia stem from an all-encompassing drive to be thin, such that self-evaluation is unduly influenced by body weight or shape. Both disorders have a similar prevalence and course. They are most common in industrialized nations and have been dramatically increasing in prevalence since the 1960s. They both predominantly affect the same demographic: young, mostly middle- and upper-class females. Their onset is typically soon after puberty and recovery from these disorders may take many years. Finally, morbidity rates for these disorders are quite high with many of these cases due to suicide. Differences:One of the main diagnostic criteria for anorexia is a refusal to maintain a normal weight. Anorexics have an intense fear of becoming fat even though they are eventually extremely underweight. This fear of weight gain leads them to grossly limit their food intake. The criteria for bulimia are a bit different although still focused on the intense fear of gaining weight. Recurrent episodes of binge eating are characteristic of this disorder. Binge eating is defined as eating in a discrete period of time (e.g., within any 2-hour period), an amount of food that is much larger than what most people would eat during a similar period of time under similar circumstances. After the binge,the bulimic individual is preoccupied with finding ways to compensate for the effects of the binge by purging. Typical compensation strategies including self-induced vomiting, excessive exercise, or use of laxatives.

What are general intelligence and the hierarchical conception of intelligence?

Spearman proposed that general intelligence (g) is a mental attribute called on for virtually any intellectual task.The hierarchical conception of intelligence proposes that intelligence has many components. At the highest level is g, a form of intelligence that applies tovirtually any mental task. Each person also has a set of more specialized talents such as "linguistic ability", or "numerical ability." Finally, each person has a much larger number of even more specialized abilities, such as "a specialized ability for fast-paced mental tasks" "a specialized ability to learn new materials," etc.Both theories appear to be correct. People draw on general intelligence in virtually everything they do. Therefore there is consistency in their performance--an overall level of achievement shaped by the person's g. People also have their specialized abilities. That's why the consistency of performance for tasks isn't perfect.

Some might argue that the conformity behavior Milgram observed back in 1960s is no longer prevalent today. Is that true? What is a study that shows people still show such conformity behavior?

Studies have shown that the conformity behavior has not reduced much from the time Milgram did the original study. Nowadays it is hard to replicate the original study due to ethical concerns about participants experiencing as individuals the ordinary human failure to become a hero.Yet there are a few cases of variations of the original Milgram study. One example is a study (a demonstration, really) conducted in2010 that used celebrity instead of college professor as the authority figure. In this case, the learner answered questions as part of a gameshow. The participant was told to shock the learner if they answered the questions wrong. (The shocks weren't real.) 80% of participants complied completely and shocked the learner all the way up using the maximum voltage.

What are some of the facts that we learned about suicide in lecture?

Suicide is the third leading cause of death in teenagers after accidents and homicide. Most teens who commit suicide have a psychological disorder (though remember: psychological disorders are quite common). Among individuals aged 18-34 who attempt suicide,most attempts are impulsive acts with (in one study) 40% of individuals deciding to commit suicide less than 5 minutes before their attempt and 70% making the decision less than an hour before. Notably, suicide rates depend on the availability of the means to do it. For example, in the UK, when there was a reduction in the toxicity of gas used in homes, the suicide rate dropped by 30%. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, an increase in toxic pesticides was associated with a substantial increase in suicides. When these pesticides were banned, the suicide rate dropped by 50%. Finally, in the US, although women attempt suicide more often than men, men are more likely to die from their attempts because they use more lethal means like guns.

What are the 3 different interaction styles that Prof. Grant discussed in lecture?

Takers are individuals who try to get as much as they can from other people and hardly give anything in return Givers are individuals who enjoy helping others and who do so with no strings attached Matchers are individuals who employ a quid pro quo strategy; try to strike an equal balance of give and take

What are some (anecdotal) ways to identify "takers" on social media sites like Facebook?

Takers are more likely to have extremely attractive profile pictures compared to their regular photos because they are trying to present very positive images of themselves to others. Takers are also more likely to engage in more self-promotion on Facebook. They are more likely to be photographed alone, and post "selfies". Additionally, if they are photographed with others, they are more likely to be pictured with famous or influential individuals.

Of these 3 interaction styles, which usually rises to the top and which falls to the bottom in terms of achievement?

Takers tend to rise quickly but fall quickly in many domains because(among other things) matchers engage in prosocial gossip warning others about the takers. Research has shown that the worst performers in sales, medicine, andengineering tend to be givers. Interestingly, however, givers are overrepresented at both extremes of success. In other words, they are most likely to be at the lowest and highest ends of achievement.

What is the availability heuristic?

The availability heuristic is the mental shortcut that uses the ease with which we recall information to determine how likely or frequent the subject of our search is. This is often a good heuristic: things that are more available in memory usually do occur more frequently in the world. However, this heuristic sometimes leads us astray. For example, horses hurt more Americans than sharks do. However, the opposite seems to be true, because using the availability heuristic, it is much easier for us to recall examples of dangerous sharks (e.g., newsreports of Australian Great White attacks) while examples of dangerous horses are less available, in part because horse-related injuries are not usually reported on the news, unless the rider is famous.

What is the comparative method? How was it used to study aggressive behavior? Pages 475-476.

The comparative method is when researchers make systematic comparisons among different species to learn about the function or origin of a structure of behavior. Researchers have used the comparative method to study aggression in animals, and have found that among vertebrates, males are generally more aggressive. In humans, males also tend to be more physically aggressive (although women can be more verbally or socially aggressive). There also seems to be a relationship between testosterone and physical aggressiveness, but the relationship is complicated in humans.

What is a bias people have when bargain-hunting because of framing effect? Please illustrate with an example.

The example given in class was that people are more willing to spend time and effort to save a large percentage on an already cheap item, than to save the same amount of money getting a smaller (percentage) sale on an expensive item. This is about "framing" because although the $ amount is the same, in one case we are viewing the savings as pertaining to one item (wow! 50% off!) and in the other case we view the savings as pertaining to the other item (who cares...9% off). But it's the same money! (lecture; textbook P359-360)

Explain the "foot in the door technique." How might this be used in a real-world setting? Can you think of a way to avoid falling victim to it?

The foot in the door technique is a method for eliciting compliance with a burdensome request that relies on people's desire to remain consistent in their behavior. Rather than immediately making a large request, a person using this technique would first make a fairly small one. Then, after the "target" of the technique has agreed to the small request, they would later make the larger one. Because the "target" agreed to the smaller request, they would infer something like "I must be the kind of person who does these sorts of things and cares about helping this person." Thus, they become more likely to comply with the larger request than they would have been had the smaller request not been made first. One particularly chilling example of how this is used in the real world comes from Jim Jones, the cult leader that we discussed earlier in the semester. He would not approach people and immediately request that they surrender all of their possessions, move to his commune, and be willing to die for his cause. Instead, he would initially recruit people by explaining the (superficially positive) goals of his group and asking if they would help out by doing some small task like stuffing some envelopes with information about the group to be mailed out. Once someone agreed to a small request like this, he would make increasingly larger requests of them, and they would generally comply, out of a desire for consistency (among other psychological causes, no doubt). As you know, this eventually culminated in over 900 people willingly sacrificing their lives at Jones's request. One possible way to avoid falling victim to the foot in the door technique is to simply be aware of it and to keep an eye out for it in the world. If a salesman (or cult leader) starts to make larger requests of you after a small one, they are probably using this technique against you. Simply realizing this could make it easier to say no to future requests.

What are the different major classes of antidepressants? What are the known mechanisms of action of different antidepressants?

The most commonly used antidepressants are serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) These drugs, which are safer and have fewer side effects than the early antidepressants, block the reuptake of serotonin, thus prolonging its time in the synapse and increasing its post-synaptic effects. There are also non-selective reuptake inhibitors, which block the reuptake of multiple neurotransmitters,including serotonin and norepinephrine. There are also atypical antidepressants which have dopaminergic effects. The MAOIs work by blocking the enzymatic breakdown of monoamines by inhibiting the oxidase responsible for their breakdown.

What do we know about the lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in the US? Is there anything surprising about these numbers?

The restricted list of disorders we reviewed in class indicated that the numbers are very high - cumulative lifetime prevalence (# ofUS adults who have ever had any disorder on list) is 46.4%. That means half the US population will have at least one diagnosable disorder from that list, and the 1-year prevalence of 25% suggests that in a1-year span a quarter of the US population has a diagnosable disorder. These numbers are underestimates of the overall rates of mental illness because: the list does not include all mental disorders(e.g. insomnia, erectile dysfunction), and this survey missed many subpopulations with higher rates of mental illness (e.g. homeless persons,, prisoners, illegal immigrants, and institutionalized persons).

Describe the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and how they regulate our body temperature to maintain homeostasis. Pages 464-465.

The sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for action (by increasing heart rate, slowing down digestion, etc.), while the parasympathetic nervous system restores the body's internal activities to normal after the action is done (by decreasing heart rate, restoring digestion, etc.). Both are parts of the autonomic nervous system (see chapter 3). There must be a mnemonic for this. How about "pare down"? Like whittling something away? Parasympathetic -> winding down? Our body maintains homeostasis (self-regulation of its internal environment) by triggering the parasympathetic branch of the nervous system when we are hot, which results in bodily efforts to lose heat via evaporation and vasodilation (widening of the skin's capillaries),and the sympathetic branch when we are cold, which results in bodily efforts to maintain heat via vasoconstriction (the contraction of the skin's capillaries) and cessation of sweating.

What is framing effect? What is the classic study that shows this effect?

The way a decision is phrased or the way options are described can influence decisions by changing the point of reference.In a classic study by Kahneman & Tversky (1981), participants were presented with questions as such:Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. We have two plans.(options framed as losses)Plan A: 400 people will diePlan B: 1/3 chance no one dies; 2/3 chance all 600 die Which plan do you choose?Another group of participants received the same problem with options framed in a different way. The plans were framed as gains rather than losses. (options framed as gains)Plan A: 200 will be savedPlan B: 1/3 chance will 600 saved; 2/3 chance nobody savedNote that Plan A in both cases is the same and Plan B in both cases is the same. However, when options were framed as losses, most people choose Plan B; when options were framed as gains, most people choose Plan A. Kahneman & Tversky (1981) interpreted the results as indicating that people are risk seeking for losses and risk averse for gains. (lecture; textbook P359-360)

What are the hypotheses for the causes of autism? How is autism typically treated?

There is substantial evidence that autism has a large genetic component. Currently, most hypotheses about the factors underlying autism focus on biological dysfunctions. Some of these propose that autism is caused by abnormalities in amygdala functioning or the cerebellum. Others propose that autism is caused by abnormalities in a brain function that allows the child to understand others' thoughts, feelings, intentions. Autism is typically treated with behavior modification which builds on the principles of shaping and reinforcement. A few medications have been tried for autism, but none have been very effective. Most children with autism (70%) will not be able to live independently as adults so they often require assisted living facilities in adulthood.

Recall Ehrlinger, Gilovich, and Ross's (2005) studies of perceptions of bias in the "other side" of arguments. Give areal-world example of the phenomenon that these studies demonstrated.

These studies consistently showed that in a disagreement, both sides think that the other side is biased, but their own side is unbiased and able to see things clearly and objectively. The obvious real-world example of this is in politics, especially partisan American politics. To take a couple of prominent stereotypes:Republicans see Democrats as naive and unable or unwilling to deal with the realities of economics and international relations, whileDemocrats see Republicans as heartless and aggressive, and as unwitting slaves to the ultra-wealthy. Both sides, of course, see themselves as unbiased and able to see the world as it really is,unlike those other guys. As in many such situations, the disagreement doesn't necessarily mean that both sides are wrong, but there is wrongness in the picture somewhere.The examples we saw involved distribution of resources in use of a new gym; affirmative action policy; and the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Do people with more grit tend to stick with difficult jobs/activities or drop out?

They are more likely to stick with what they're doing, even if it's hard. In Professor Duckworth's research, she found that sales representatives, Chicago public school students, and special forces officers with higher grit scores all showed greater retention rates. In other words, lower grit people are more likely to drop out, while higher grit people stay the course.

In the Latane and Darley experiment on people's behavior in ambiguous, threatening situations, what did they find? What have replications revealed about the influences of these behaviors --e.g. what do Latane and Darley propose as the 3 true potential explanations of so-called "bystander apathy"?

They found that people were very likely to investigate the smoke and leave the room to find help when they were alone (75%), but much less likely to do so when in a room with 2 confederates who see the smoke but who respond with indifference rather than alarm. Especially surprising was their finding that the likelihood of intervening was also quite low (1 to 3 of 24 subjects) when the 2 other people in the room were other participants who also did not know that the smoke wasn't dangerous -- a counterintuitive finding because one would imagine that having 3 people with the potential to be worried and react would increase the likelihood.Replications have revealed that having more people around makes you LESS likely to get helped, if the situation is ambiguous. This effect is stronger with strangers than with friends.They proposed 3 potential influences on people's lack of action in these situations: 1) audience inhibition: embarrassing to be wrong in front of others, 2) social influence on interpretation: maybe those other people know something, and 3) diffusion of responsibility: it needs doing, but why should it be me?

What is the fundamental attribution error? Does its extent vary across cultures?

This is the tendency to make dispositional attributions of people's behavior while ignoring situational or environmental factors that may have led to that behavior. For example, someone cuts you off in traffic and you immediately think "*******". However, what situational factors could have led them to cut you off? Maybe they were transporting their friend with serious arterial bleeding to the nearest hospital. Or they're late to their wedding. Or a million other situational factors that regularly lead us all to do things we don't normally do. There is some evidence that the FAE may be stronger inWestern cultures like ours (with our relatively strong emphasis on individual identities) compared to some Eastern cultures (with a relative emphasis on group identities). For example, in one study,Hindu Indians and European Americans were both given vignettes about people's actions. Consistent with the FAE, Americans gave twice as many dispositional attributions as situational attributions. However,the Indians showed just the opposite trend, giving twice as many situational attributions as dispositional ones.

What is the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins? Why is this distinction important, and what do twins tell us about heritable factors like intelligence?

Twins are siblings who share either half of their genes (dizygotic,"fraternal" twins) or all of their genes (monozygotic, "identical"twins). This distinction is crucial for trying to separate genetic and environmental influences on development. For example, twin studies have found that intelligence is correlated .86 between monozygotic twins. (Reminder: positive correlations vary between 0 and 1, with 0indicating no relationship and 1 indicating perfect correlation). Of course, these monozygotic twins generally grow up together, leaving open the possibility that this correlation is entirely driven by the environment. However, further comparisons shed light on this issue. First, monozygotic twins reared apart show intelligence correlations of .7, suggesting that the environment had some effect(i.e., the correlation dropped .1), but also that genetics is probably the bigger determinant of intelligence (the correlation is still incredibly high). The second comparison is with dizygotic twins, whose intelligence correlates at .6. This is also a very large correlation,but note that it is smaller than identical twins reared apart,suggesting that sharing 100% of your genes results in more similarity than sharing 50% of your genes and growing up in the same environment.

Is personality biologically determined? What does the heritability of temperament suggest? What is an example of how genes could affect personality?

We know that temperament (a person's characteristic level of reactivity and energy) is highly heritable: monozygotic twins are more similar than dizygotic twins (with heritability ranging from40-60%. Insofar as our genetic code influences our personality, it probably does so in part by predisposing us to certain behavioral tendencies; for example, those with inhibited temperament (a personality style associated with introversion and neuroticism,characterized by a fear of novelty) seem to have lower thresholds for activation of the amygdala, an area of the brain involved in threat detection.

When do people make dispositional vs. situational attributions about themselves? Could we call this a bias as well? What's a prominent exception to the general trend?

We tend to think that the good things that happen in life are our own doing (e.g., if I pass an exam: I am smart and worked hard) but blame bad things on the world and other people (e.g., if I fail: the professor wrote an unfair exam). This is sometimes called the self-serving bias, as people tend to interpret events in a systematically biased way that serves their own self-image.Another example: when people are successful in business, this bias would lead such a person to focus primarily on the things he or she did that were necessary for his or her success, and not on the situational conditions that made that success possible (e.g., having gone to good schools paid by the parents, having had access to a work force with a decent public education, etc.).One exception is the way people sometimes respond to catastrophes. For example, if you're having lunch with a friend and he steps outside and get hit by a taxi, you may start to blame yourself over things you could not control (e.g., "If only I had made him get another cup of coffee"). In light of really terrible things, people often search for a way to take responsibility for those events.

What things do our definitions of abnormality influence?Why does how we define abnormality matter in the real world?

What is defined as abnormal can have a huge influence in a variety of settings. Definitions of abnormality can influence what and who is treated: it can guide people to seek treatment (knowledge that you have a disorder can influence treatment seeking), to be eligible for treatment (insurance coverage), and it can shape what treatments are available (it's hard to have a treatment for something that isn't defined). It can guide research funding, and thus can influence what treatments are available, what we know about the disorder, and can lead to the improvement and development of existing and new treatments. It can influence public policy, as public funding for disorders is often linked to how prevalent and impactful a disorder is in a society: if only .05% of a population suffers from a disorder, it will likely receive less attention and funding than a disorder that exists in 20% of the population. To make these estimates you have to be able to count the number of people who are suffering from each disorder.

What is deliberate practice? (lecture) (we covered this also in our discussion of expertise in February.)

When people do deliberate practice, 1) they have a specific learning goal in mind; 2) the learning goal is about the person's weaknesses instead of strengths; 3) they seek immediate and informative feedback; 4) they repeat over time to mastery levels; and 5) they do deliberate practice with full attention and complete focus, which is why deliberate practice often happens when people are alone instead of with other people.

What is the anchoring effect? What is a study that shows the effect?

When people make judgments with uncertainty, they start with anchors and adjust away from that anchor. Because adjusting requires conscious effort, they tend to under-adjust, which results in biases. Rather bizarrely, we use even anchors that we know to be random.In a study by Dan Kahneman, he asked participants questions such as, "what proportion of the African nations are members of the UN"? Before participants gave estimation, they got a random number, say 10, and they were asked if they thought the answer was higher or lower than 10%. Afterwards, they were asked to give their own estimation. People who started from 10% (who got the random number 10) gave a much lower estimate than people who started with 65% (people who got the random number 65). Participants knew the number was random and should not affect the answer to the question, but they anchor their estimation with this random number and under-adjust, resulting in this bias in estimation.

What is self-handicapping? Is it found more in some cultures than others?

self-handicapping is a self-preservation strategy where people create obstacles to their own performance. Although this seems counterintuitive, self-handicapping allows a person to attribute failures to these obstacles, rather than to his or her own limitations. For example, if I were afraid of failing the final exam in this class, the obvious course of action would be diligent study. However, I instead might spend more time than usual watching television, or drinking, or drinking and watching television. Then, if I did not do well on the exam, I could make a relatively harmless attribution (e.g., I didn't study hard enough) rather than a more sensitive, ego-challenging one (e.g., I am not smart enough to succeed at Penn). This form of self-protection is less common in collectivistic cultures -- that is, among people who are less motivated to view themselves as different from, and better than, others.