Psych 105 Exam 4/Final

Review the info in the "Rat Park" study. What it proved and how the Vietnam War offered real world evidence to support its findings

RAT PARK- Alexander study -Disease model hadn't picked up steam yet -Thought that we are throwing our money away with drug addicts -Environment shows a huge impact on recovery -If we throw them back into the same place they were when they used drugs, the result would be the same -Rats would be in an environment for 11 days, then moved. He would study them while they were taking heroin. Rat Groups: -Isolation, isolation (isolation=heroin use-nothing else to do) -Isolation, rat park -Rat park, isolation -Rat park, rat park -Rats that were in rat park didn't use heroin! -80% of GI's coming back from vietnam were addicted to opioids -That didn't happen... they came to their normal lives (hanging with the families) and did not return to drug use because of their better environment

There are 10 questions (1/5 of the test) regarding Freud and his contribution to psychology. I would review all of the information on Freud/Psychoanalytic Theory and know it well.

Psychoanalytic Personality Theory: Personality is formed very early in life and is strongly influenced by processes of which we are unaware (internal conflicts, aggression, sexual urges); the development of personality depends on the expression of unconscious processes and how caregivers respond. The criticism of this theory is that it ignores the importance of current experiences; overemphasis on the unconscious and the role of sexuality in personality; theory based on a biased, nonrepresenative sample; concepts difficult to operationally define and empirically test. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) believed childhood is the prime time for personality development. Early years and basic drives are particularly important, according to Freud, because they shape our thoughts emotions, and behaviors in ways beyond our awareness. PSYCHOANALYSIS refers to Freud's views about personality as well as his system of Psychotherapy and tools for the exploration of the unconscious. Working with patients, he noted that many had unexplained or unusual symptoms that seemed related to emotional problems. He also observed (along with colleagues) that the basis of the problems appeared to be sexual in nature, although his patients weren't necessarily aware of this influence. Thus began Freud's lifelong journey to untangle the mysteries of the unconscious mind. Freud proposed that the mind has three levels of consciousness: Conscious, Preconcious, and Unconscious. This so called Iceberg Model, or topographical model, was his earliest attempt to explain the bustling activity occurring within the head. It describes the Features of the mind (which explains the reference to topography). Freud believed that behaviors and personality are guided by mental processes occurring at all three levels of the mind. Everything you are aware of at this moment exists at the Conscious level, including thoughts, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. At the Preconcious level are the mental activities outside your current awareness, but that can be brought easily to your attention. (You are studying Freud's theory at this moment, but your mind begins to wander and you start thinking about what you did yesterday). The Unconscious level is home to activities outside of your awareness, such as wishes, feelings, thoughts and urges, which are very difficult to access without concerted effort and/or therapy. To gain access to the unconscious level, Freud used a variety of techniques, such as dream interpretation, hypnosis, and free association. Freud did suggest, however, that some content of the unconscious can enter the conscious level through manipulated and distorted processes beyond a person's control or awareness (more on this shortly). In addition to the topographical model, Freud opposed a Structural Model, which describes the 'functions or purposes' of the minds components. As Freud saw it, the human mind is composed of three structures: the ID, the EGO, and the SUPEREGO. These components lie at the core of the unconscious conflicts influencing our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors- that is, our Personality. The ID is the most primitive structure of the mind. It is present from birth, and its activities occur at the unconscious level. The infant like part of our mind and personality (being impulsive, illogical, pleasure seeking) results from the workings of the id. Our biological drives and instincts, which motivate us, derive from the id. Freud proposed that the id represents the component of the mind that forms the primary pool of Psychic Energy. Included in that is sexual energy, which motivates much of our behavior. The primary goal of the id is to ensure that the individual's needs are being met, helping to maintain Homeostasis. The id is not rational; it is impulsive, and it wants what it wants when it wants it. Unfilled needs or urges compel the id to insist on immediate action. The id is ruled by the Pleasure Principal, which guides behavior toward instant gratification-and away from contemplating consequences. The id seeks pleasure and avoids pain. As an infant grows and starts to realize that the desires of the id cannot prevail in all situations, her EGO, which is not present from birth, begins to develop from the Id. The ego manipulates situations, plans for the future, solves problems, and makes decisions to satisfy the needs of the id. The goal is to make sure the id is not given free rein to decide on or steer behavior, as this would cause problems. To control the psychic energy generated by the id, the ego must 'negotiate' between the desires of the id and the requirements of real life. Adults know they can't always get what they want when they want it, but the id doesn't know or care. Imagine what a busy supermarket would be like if we were all ruled by our ids, ignoring societal expectations to stand in line, speak politely, and pay for food; the store would be full of adults having todderlike tantrums. The ego uses the Reality Principle to negotiate between the id and the environment. This requires knowledge of the rules of the 'real' world and allows most of us to delay gratification as needed. The reality principle works through an awareness of potential consequences; the ego can predict what will happen if we act on an urge. One suggestion is that the ego represents what we call the self- that is, the self of which we are consciously aware. We are aware of the ego's activities, although some happen at the precocious level, and even fewer at the unconscious level. The SUPEREGO is the structure of the mind that develops last, guiding behavior to follow the rules of society, parents, or other authority figures. The superego begins to form as the toddler starts moving about on his own, coming up against rules and expectations (No, you cannot hit your sister! You need to put your toys away.). Around age 5 or 6, the child begins to incorporate the morals and values of his parents or caregivers, including their expectations and ideas about right and wrong, colloquially known as the Conscience. Once the superego is rooted, it serves as a critical internal guide to the values of society (not just those of the parents), so that the child can make 'good' choices without constant reminders from a parent, caregiver, or religious leader. The rules and expectations now come from an internal voice citing right and wrong. Yet at times, the superego might serve as a harsh and judgmental voice in response to the unrealistic standards it has set. The superego is an internalized version of what you have been taught is right and wrong, not necessarily an independent moral authority. Some of the activities of the superego are conscious, but the great majority occur at the precocious and unconscious levels. -The EGO monitors the demands of both the ID and the SUPEREGO, trying to satisfy both. Rules and expectations must be dealt with by the ego, as it maneuvers between the wishes of the id and the requirements and limits set by the environment. Think of the energy of the id, pushing to get all desires met instantly. The ego must ensure needs are met in an acceptable manner, reducing tension as much as possible. But not all urges and desires can be met (sometimes not instantly, sometimes never), so when the ego cannot satisfy the id, it must do something with the unsatisfied urge or unmet need. One solution is to remove it from the conscious part of the mind. As you have figured out by now, the job of the ego is not easy. It must balance the infantile demands of the id with the perfectionist authority of the superego, and deal with the resulting conflict. This is feasible, but it takes some fancy footwork on the part of the ego. Freud proposed that EGO DEFENSE MECHANISMS distort our perceptions and memories of the 'real' world, without our awareness, tor educe the anxiety created by conflicts among the id, ego, and superego. Imagine you are about to leave for class and a good friend texts to invite you to a movie. You are torn, because you known an exam for the course is coming up next week and you shouldn't skip today's class. Your ID is demanding a movie, some popcorn, and freedom from work. Your SUPEREGO demands that you go to class so you will be fully prepared for the exam next week. Clearly, your ego can't satisfy both of these demands. The ego must also deal with the external world and its requirements (for example, getting points for attendance). Freud proposed that this sort of struggle is an everyday, recurring experience that is not always won by the EGO. Sometimes, the id will win, and the person will act in an infantile, perhaps even destructive manner (you give into the pressures of your friend and your id, and happily decide to skip class). Occasionally, the superego will prevail, and the person will feel a great deal of remorse or guilt for not living up to some moral idea (you skip class, but the entire time you are at the movie you are not able to enjoy it). Sometimes, the anxiety associated with the conflict between the id and the superego, which generally is unconscious, will surface to the conscious level. The ego will then have to deal with this anxiety and make it more bearable (perhaps by suggesting that a day off will help you study, because you have had any free time all semester). More often than not, the ego must come up with a way to decrease the tension. If the ego can't find a compromise, the anxiety may become overwhelming, and the ego will turn to defense mechanisms to reduce it. PROJECTION is a Defense Mechanism that occurs when the expression of a thought or urge is so anxiety provoking that the ego makes us see it in someone else or accuse another of harboring these same urges. For example, if you are attracted to someone, but this attraction causes you a lot of anxiety, you may project that feeling onto your friend and ask her, "Oh you really like Tai don't you?" Freud proposed a variety of other defense mechanisms, which were expanded upon his daughter, Anna. Probably the defense mechanism best known by the general public is REPRESSION, which refers to the way the ego moves uncomfortable thoughts, memories, or feelings from the conscious level to the unconscious. With anxiety-provoking memories, the reality of an event can become distorted to such an extreme that you don't even remember it. Someone involved in a bad car accident, for example, might have unconsciously or automatically repressed the memories surrounding the traumatic event. The ego moves the memory from the conscious to the unconscious so that the person can function day to day without anxiety from the accident surfacing into consciousness. Repressed thoughts are like ping pong balls held below the surface of the water. As long as you hold them down, they stay submerged; but if you let go, they pop up to the surface. The balls didn't cease to exist- they were simply just below the surface, out of sight and mind. There are two important points to remember about Defense Mechanisms. First, we are often unaware of using them, even if they are brought to our attention. Second, using defense mechanisms is not necessarily a bad thing. There are times when it helps to have reality distorted; for example, when anxiety seeps to the surface, defense mechanisms can bring it down to manageable level. But sometimes conflicts between the id and the superego are overwhelming, the anxiety is too much for the ego, and we overuse our defense mechanisms. If this is the case, our behaviors may turn inappropriate or unhealthy. -EGO DEFENSE MECHANISMS. The impulsive demands of the id sometimes conflict with the moralistic demands of the superego, resulting in anxiety. When that anxiety becomes a source of the tension, the ego works to relieve this uncomfortable feeling through the use of defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms give us a way to 'defend' against tension and anxiety, but they are only sometimes adaptive, or helpful. Defense mechanisms can be categorized ranging from less adaptive to more adaptive. More adaptive defense mechanisms help us deal with our anxiety in more productive ways. *Defense mechanisms from more adaptive to less adaptive*: -SUBLIMATION: Redirecting unacceptable impulses into acceptable outlets. For example, instead of worrying about cancer risk, spend time researching clinics and selecting a highly trained dermatologist who specializes in mole analysis. -INDENTIFICATION: Unconsciously modeling our feelings or actions on the behaviors of someone we admire. For example, feeling worried about sun exposure, begin sporting the floppy hat and sunglasses frequently worn by a famous model. -DISPLACEMENT: Shifting negative feelings and impulses to an acceptable target. For example, when scheduling appointment with dermatologist, complain to receptionist about the long wait and inconvenient hours. -REPRESSION: Anxiety-producing information is pushed to the unconscious. For example, continually forget to make an appointment. -RATIONALIZATION: Creating an acceptable excuse for an uncomfortable situation. For example, "I've always had that mole. There's nothing to worry about." -PROJECTION: Attributing your own anxiety-provoking thoughts and impulses to someone else. For example, "My girlfriend spends too much time sunbathing. I'll tell her she should get screened for cancer!" -DENIAL: Refusing to recognize a distressing reality. For example, Ignoring the mole. "I'm way too young. It can't be cancer." Freud also conceived a Developmental Model to explain how personality is formed through experiences in childhood, with a special emphasis on sexuality. The development of sexuality and personality follows a fairly standard path through what Freud termed the PSYCHOSEXUAL STAGES, which all children experience as they mature into adulthood. The sexual energy of the id is a force behind this development, and because children are sexual beings starting from birth, this indicates a strong biological component to personality development. Associated with each of the psychosexual stages is a specific Erogenous Zone, or area of the body that when stimulated provides more sexual pleasure than other areas of the body. Along with each Psychosexual Stage comes a conflict, and these must be successfully resolved in order for an individual to become a well-adjusted adult. If these conflicts are not suitably addressed, one may suffer from a FIXATION and get stuck in that particular stage, unable to progress smoothly through the remaining stages. Freud believed that Fixation at a psychosexual stage during the first 5 to 6 years of life can dramatically influence an adult's personality. Lets look at each stage, its erogenous zone, conflicts, and some consequences of fixation. *Psychosexual Stages + definitions/examples/order* The ORAL STAGE is the first psychosexual stage, beginning at birth and lasting until the infant is about 1 to 1.5 years old. The erogenous zone for this stage is the mouth. During this stage the infant gets its greatest pleasure from sucking, chewing, and gumming. According to Freud, the conflict during this stage generally centers on weaning. Infants must stop nursing or using a bottle as a pacifier, and the timing of this weaning often is decided by the caregiver. Here is a possible conflict: The infant wants to continue using the bottle because it is a pleasurable activity, but his parent believes he is old enough to switch to a cup. How the caregiver handles this conflict can have long term consequences for personality development. Freud suggested that certain behavior patterns and personality traits are associated with oral fixation, including smoking, nail biting, and excessive talking and alcohol consumption. Following the oral stage, a child enters the ANAL STAGE, which lasts approx. until the age of 3. The erogenous zone is the anus, and pleasure is derived from eliminating body waste as well as learning to control the body parts responsible for this process. The conflict centers on toilet training: The parents want their child to control her waste elimination in a socially acceptable way, but the child is not necessarily on board with his new procedure for doing so. Once again, how caregivers deal with this learning task may have long term implications on personality. Freud suggested that toilet training can set the stage for power struggles between child and adult; the child ultimately will gain control over her bodily functions, and then she can use this control to manipulate caregivers (not always 'going' at the appropriate time and place'). If a parent is too harsh about toilet training (growing angry when there are accidents, forcing a child to sit on the toilet until she goes) or to lenient (making excuses for accidents, not really encouraging the child to learn control), the child might grow up with an Anal-Retentive personality (rule-bound meaning overly limited or restricted by rules, or stingy) or an Anal-Expulsive personality (chaotic, destructive). Age 3 to 6 marks the PHALLIC STAGE (Phallus means penis). The erogenous zone is the genitals, and many children begin to discover that self-stimulation is pleasurable. Freud assigned special importance to the conflict that occurs in the Phallic stage. During this time, little boys develop a desire to replace they fathers. According to Freud these feelings are normal, but they lead to boys becoming jealous of their fathers, who are now considered rivals for their mothers' affection. This pattern, referred to as the OEDIPUS COMPLEX, is named for a character in a complex Greek myth. Oedipus was abandoned by his parents when he was a newborn, so he did not know they identities. As an adult, he unknowingly married his mother and killed his father. Freud named the behavior pattern of the Phallic stage after the Greek tragedy, as how boys behave and feel during this period seems to follow such a pattern. When a little boy becomes aware of his attraction to his mother, he realizes is father is a rival and experiences jealousy and anger towards him. He also begins to fear his father, who is powerful, and worry that his father might punish him. Specifically, he fears that his father might castrate him. In order to reduce the tension, the boy must identify and behave like his father, a process otherwise known as Identification. This defense mechanism resolves the Oedipus Complex by allowing the boy to take on or internalize the behaviors, gestures, morals, and standards of his father. Freud proposed that the fear of castration causes a great deal of anxiety, but with successful resolution of the Oedipus complex, this anxiety is repressed. The boy realizes that sexual affection should be only between his father and mother, and the incest taboo develops. Freud believed that little girls experience a different conflict, which others call the ELECTRA COMPLEX. Little girls feel an attraction to their fathers, and become angry/jealous towards their mothers. Around the same time, they realize that they do not have a penis. This leads to feelings of loss and jealousy, known as penis envy. The girl responds with anger, blaming her mother for her missing penis. Realizing she can't have her father, she starts to act like her mother, again a process called Identification. She takes on her mothers behaviors, gestures, morals, and standards. If children do not resolve the sexual conflicts that arise during the Phallic Stage, they develop a Fixation (an obsessive interest or feeling about someone/something), which can lead to promiscuity, flirtation, vanity, over dependence, bravado, and an increased focus on masturbation. Freud proposed that from 6 years old to puberty, children remain in a LATENCY PERIOD (not a 'stage' according to Freud's definition; there is no erogenous zone, no conflict, no fixation). During this time, psychosexual development slows. The child's sexual energy during this period is Repressed: Although children develop mentally, socially, and physically, their sexual development is on hold. This idea is supported by the fact that most prepubertal children tend to gravitate toward same sex friends and playmates. Following the calm of the latency period, a child's psychosexual development picks up speed again. The GENITAL STAGE begins at puberty and is the final stage of psychosexual development. During this time, there is a reawakening of sexuality. The erogenous zone is centered on the genitals, but now in association with relationships, as opposed to autoeroticism or masturbation. Adolescents become interested in partners, whereas earlier their focus was family members. This is a time when one resolves the Oedipus or Electra complex and often becomes attracted to partners who resemble one's opposite sex-parent, according to Freud. Because of the ever present Id and its requirement for satisfaction, there still are unconscious conflicts to be addressed, including the continual battle against unconscious sexual and aggressive urges. The resolution of these conflicts impacts the types of relationships we seek and cultivate. If earlier conflicts are put tor rest, then it is possible to thrive in adult activities such as work and love. KAREN HORNEY: Emphasized the role of relationships between children and their caregivers, not erogenous zones and psychosexual stages. She believed individuals respond to feelings of helplessness and isolation created by inadequate parenting, which she referred to as Basic Anxiety. In order to deal with this anxiety, Horney suggested that people use three strategies: moving toward people (looking for affection and acceptance), moving away from people (looking for isolation and self-sufficiency), or moving against people (looking to control others). Horney believed that a balance of these three strategies is important for psychological stability. She also said girls aren't jealous of the penis, but the power and status it represents. -Not biological, but cultural/social -Neurosis a result of treatment in early childhood ^Overly strict parents ^Neglect ^Abuse ^Leads to defense mechanisms -Maladaptive personality styles FREE ASSOCIATION: Freud would often use dreams as a launching pad for Free Association, a therapy technique in which a patent says anything and everything that comes to mind, regardless of how silly, bizarre, or inappropriate it may seem. PSYCHOANALYSIS: Psychoanalysis attempts to increase awareness of unconscious conflicts, thus making it possible to address and work through them. Freud said that humans are motivated by two animal like drives: aggression and sex. But acting on these drives is not always compatible with social norms, so they create conflict and get pushed beneath the surface, or repressed. These drives just don't go away though, they stay simmering beneath our conscious awareness, affecting our moods and behaviors. And when we can no longer keep them at bay, the result may be disordered behavior, such as that seen with phobias, obsessions, and panic attacks. To help patients deal with these drives, Freud created Psychoanalysis, which involved multiple weekly sessions. CONFLICT: One's feeling of conflict between pleasurable sexual feelings and the restrictions and potential disapproval of caregivers. Along with each psychosexual stage comes a conflict, and these must be successfully resolved in order for an individual to become a well-adjusted adult. If these conflicts are not suitably addressed, one may suffer from a Fixation (an obsessive interest in someone or something) and get stuck in that particular stage, unable to progress smoothly through the remaining stages. 2. Perspectives -Psychoanalytic theory (Freud) -Was a physician and outstanding physiological researcher -Influenced by Joseph Breuer - influenced by hypnosis -^Case of Anna O. (extreme boarder personality disorder) -Asserted sexuality was fundamental human motive and aggression was second powerful human instinct Psychoanalysis is both an approach to therapy and a theory of personality -Unconscious mind -Conflicting psychological forces -FREE ASSOCIATION: a psychoanalytic technique in which the patient spontaneously reports all thoughts, feelings and mental images as they come to mind -Psychological forces operate at three different levels of awareness: -Conscious -Preconscious -Unconscious

Review the information on the 3 different trait perspectives: Cattell's, Eyesenk's, and the Big Five (5 factor model). Know well each of the five factors

Raymond Catell proposed grouping the long list of personality traits into two major categories: surface and source traits. SURFACE TRAITS are the easily observable personality characteristics we commonly use to describe people: 'she is quiet'. 'he is friendly'. SOURCE TRAITS are the foundational qualities that give rise to surface traits. For example, 'extraversion' is a source trait, and the surface traits it produces may include 'warm', 'gregarious', and 'assertive'. There are thousands of surface traits but only a few source traits. Cattell proposed that source traits are the product of both hereditary and environment (nature and nurture), and surface traits are the 'combined action of severe source traits'. Realizing that some of these surface traits would be correlated, he used a statistical procedure known as Factor Analysis to group them into a smaller set of dimensions according to common underlying properties. From this, he produced a list of 16 personality factors. These factors, or personality dimensions, can be considered primary source traits. On one end of the first dimension is the reserved and unsocial person; and the other end is the 'social butterfly'. Hans Eysenck continued to develop our understanding of source traits, proposing that we could describe personalities using three dimensions: Introversion-Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), and Psychoticism (P). People high on the Extraversion end of the Introversion-Extraversion (E) dimension tend to display a marked degree of sociability and are outgoing and active with others in their environment. Those on the introversion side of the dimension tend to be quiet and careful and enjoy time alone. Having high Neuroticism (N) typically goes hand in hand with being restless, moody, excitable, while low neuroticism means being calm, reliable, and emotionally stable. A person who is high on the Psychoticism dimension is likely to be cold, impersonal, and antisocial, whereas someone at the opposite end of this dimension is warm, caring, and empathetic. In addition to identifying these dimensions, Eysenck worked diligently to unearth their biological basis. For example. Eysenck proposed a direct relationship between the behaviors associated with introversion-extraversion dimension and the reticular formation. According the Eysenck, introverted people display higher reactivity in their reticular formation than those who are extraverted. An introvert has higher levels of arousal, thus is more likely to react to stimuli, and therefore has developed a pattern of behavior to cope. He may be more careful or restrained, for example. An extravert has lower levels of arousal, and thus is less reactive to stimuli. Extraverts seek stimulation because their arousal levels are so low, so they tend to be more impulsive and outgoing. The BIG FIVE, is a current trait approach for explaining personality. This model, developed using factor analysis, indicates there are 5 factors/dimensions to describe personality. Trait theorists propose they are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. OPENESS is the degree to which someone is willing to try new experiences. Conscientiousness refers to someones attention to detail and organized tendencies. The extraversion and neuroticism dimensions are similar to Eysencks dimensions noted earlier: Extraversion refers to degree of sociability and outgoingness; Neuroticism, to emotion stability (degree to which a person is calm, secure, and even tempered). Agreeableness indicates how trusting and easygoing a person is. To remember these factors, students use OCEAN: OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM. *Ciera* The Trait Theory -Explain our similarities rather than explore our differences -A way to quantify our differences and predict outcomes -Traits: are dimensions of personality used to characterize people to the degree to which they manifest the characteristic -Typology vs. Continuum Typology: you are or you aren't ^Introverted -Continuum: you can place an individual at any point of the scale ^Gives quantifiable levels ^Most traits are normally distributed LEXICAL APPROACH: -Taxonomy: naming based on language -Personality characteristics should be coded in language -Allport and Odbert (1936) dictionary ^Discovered 4,000 words FACTOR ANALYTIC APPROACH -Raymond Cattell ^Reduced to 171 items ^Factor analysis reduced to 16 source personality traits ^Cattell: made personality traits into two major traits: -Surface traits ^Easily observable personality characteristics we commonly use to describe people ^ex) she is quiet, he is friendly -Source traits ^Foundational qualities that give rise to surface traits ^ex) extraversion - source traits that gives surface traits such as warmth and assertive Hans Eysenck -Three factor model based on biology -Three "super traits": 1. Extraversion: outgoing 2. Neuroticism: emotional stability 3. Psychoticism: aggressive and antisocial The Big 5 -Five factor model: 1. Extraversion: seeking fulfillment of sources outside themselves. High scores = social 2. Neuroticism: highly emotional 3. Conscientiousness: honest and hardworking. High scores have clean homes. Attention to detail and organizational tendencies. 4. Agreeableness: like people and work well in teams. How trusting and easygoing a person is. 5. Openness to experience To remember... OCEAN -Highly heritable -Research: NEO-PI R: measures all big 5 traits with each factor and 6 sub-factors ^Very high reliability and validity across cultures ^Good for general populations -Sub-factors

Abstract of all articles:

*1954 Olds and Milner Dopamine Hypothesis* -Study of rewarding effects, the reward being electrical stimulation of certain areas in the brain. -Study was on rats, 60 cycle with alternating voltages of 1/2-5 volts. -Electrodes were implanted in various points in the brain. The rate were tested in Skinner Boxes where they could stimulate themselves by pressing a lever. -They received no other reward than the electrical stimulus/shocking. -They found that there are numerous places in the lower brain where electrical stimulation is rewarding, in the sense that the animal will repeatedly stimulate itself for a long time if permitted to do so. -The reward results are obtained more dependably with electrode placement in some areas than others. The septal area being the most dependable. -In septal area preparations, the control exercised over the animals behavior by means of this reward is extreme, exceeding that exercised by any other reward previously used in animal experimentation. -There were no signs of pain in the rats at all. -The study was discussed as possibly laying a methodological foundation for a physiological study of the mechanisms of reward. *2001 Koob Lemoal Drug Addiction, dysregulation of reward, and allostasis* -the present perspective is that drug addiction represents an allostatic state in the brain reward system reflected in new reward set points, not only by dysregulation of reward circuits per se but also by the activation and recruitment of brain and hormonal stress responses. -Allostasis from the drug addiction perspective is the process of maintaining apparent reward function stabil- ity by recruitment of changes in reward and stress sys- them neurocircuitry. -The allostatic state is a chronic devi- ation of reward thresholds. -The hypothesis generated here is that counteradaptive processes such as oppo- nent-processes, that are part of a normal homeostatic limitation of reward function, fail to return within the homeostatic range. -Such dysregulations grow with re- peated drug intake producing an allostatic state that drives further drug intake, and ultimately compulsive drug intake, and in turn exaggerates the allostatic state. -The manifestation of this allostatic state as compul- sive drug-taking may be expressed through the neural circuits of the cortico-striatal-thalamic loops. The hy- pothesis is that these are the same circuits that are acti- vated by other psychopathology involving repetitive compulsive behavior. *2005 Kalivas Volow The neural basis of addiction a pathology of motivation and choice* -The prefrontal cortex is hyperresponsive to stimuli predicting drug availability, resulting in supraphysio- logical glutamatergic drive in the nucleus accumbens, where excitatory synapses have a reduced capacity to regulate neurotransmission. -Cellular adaptations in pre- frontal glutamatergic innervation of the accumbens promote the compulsive character of drug seeking in addicts by decreasing the value of natural rewards, diminishing cognitive control (choice), and enhancing glutamatergic drive in re- sponse to drug-associated stimuli. *2007 Berridge Dopamines incentive salience* -Dopamine does contribute causally to incentive salience. Dopamine appears necessary for normal 'want- ing', and dopamine activation can be sufficient to enhance cue-triggered incentive salience. Drugs of abuse that promote dopamine signals short circuit and sensitize dynamic mesolimbic mechanisms that evolved to attribute incentive salience to rewards. Such drugs interact with incentive salience integrations of Pavlovian associative information with physiological state signals. That interac- tion sets the stage to cause compulsive 'wanting' in addiction, but also provides opportunities for experiments to disentangle 'wanting', 'liking', and learning hypotheses. -In short, dopamine's contribution appears to be chiefly to cause 'wanting' for hedonic rewards, more than 'liking' or learning for those rewards *2007 Hyman Addiction* -The long experience of humanity with addiction does not counsel fatalism, but implacable ef- forts to overcome the behavioral effects of neural circuits hijacked by drugs -Views based on cognitive neuro- science and studies of addiction pathogenesis suggest that some apparently voluntary behaviors may not be as freely planned and executed as they first appear. -For many reasons, it may be wise for societies to err on the side of holding addicted individuals responsible for their behavior and to act as if they are capable of exerting more control than perhaps they can; however, if the ideas expressed in this review are right, it should be with a view to rehabilitation of the addicted per- son and protection of society rather than moral opprobrium. *2008 Koob Lemoal Antireward system* -Addiction is concep- tualized as a cycle of decreased function of brain reward systems and recruitment of antireward systems that progressively worsen, result- ing in the compulsive use of drugs. Counteradaptive processes, such as opponent process, that are part of the normal homeostatic limita- tion of reward function fail to return within the normal homeostatic range and are hypothesized to repeatedly drive the allostatic state. Excessive drug taking thus results in not only the short-term ame- lioration of the reward deficit but also suppression of the antireward system. However, in the long term, there is worsening of the underly- ing neurochemical dysregulations that ultimately form an allostatic state (decreased dopamine and opioid peptide function, increased corticotropin-releasing factor activity). This allostatic state is hy- pothesized to be reflected in a chronic deviation of reward set point that is fueled not only by dysregulation of reward circuits per se but also by recruitment of brain and hormonal stress responses. Vulner- ability to addiction may involve genetic comorbidity and develop- mental factors at the molecular, cellular, or neurocircuitry levels that sensitize the brain anti reward systems. *2010 Koob The Role of CRF in the dark side of addiction* -CRF is a key mediator of the hormonal, autonomic, and behavior responses to stressors. Emphasis is placed on the role of CRF in extrahypothalamic systems in the extended amygdala, including the central nucleus of the amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and a transition area in the shell of the nucleus accumbens, in the dark side of addiction -Compelling evidence argues that the CRF stress system, including its activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, plays a key role in engaging the transition to dependence and maintaining dependence once it is initiated. Understanding the role of the CRF systems in addiction not only provides insight into the neurobiology of the dark side of addiction, but also provides novel targets for identifying vulnerability to addiction and the treatment of addiction. *Science 1997 Koob* -Sensitization and counteradaptation are hypothesized to contribute to this hedonic homeostatic dysregulation, and the neurobiological mechanisms involved, such as the mesolimbic dopamine system, opioid peptidergic systems, and brain and hor- monal stress systems, are beginning to be characterized. This framework provides a realistic approach to identifying the neurobiological factors that produce vulnerability to addiction and to relapse in individuals with a history of addiction.

Review the info on the choice argument

Addiction is a Disease - true or false? -All drugs are derived from plant matter -Anything intoxicating = addicting -Hard to say it's a disease... because it's a choice -Glass of alcohol + taking a drink = consequence (gunshot) If the consequences are BIG enough then the person won't drink. -Drawing no distinction between behaviors and symptoms -ADDICTION IS A DISEASE... of CHOICE -Affects the brain areas that are responsible for choice - so they really do not have a choice! -So, free will plays no part in addiction

Review the information on Phillip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and how it translates to the problems at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

August 1971: Phillip Zimbardo of Stanford University launched what would become one of the most controversial experiments in the history of Psychology. Zimbardo and his colleagues carefully selected 24 male college students to platy the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated 'prison' setup in the basement of Stanford University's psych building. (Three of the selected students didn't end up participating, so the final number of participants included 10 prisoners and 11 guards.) The young men chosen for the experiment were deemed 'normal-average' by the researchers, who administered several psychological tests. After being 'arrested' in their homes by Palo Alto Police Officers, the prisoners were searched and booked at a local police station, and then sent to the 'prison' at Stanford. The experiment was supposed to last for 2 weeks, but the behavior of the guards and prisoners was so disturbing the researchers abandoned the study after just 6 days. The guards became abusive, punishing the prisoners, stripping them naked, and confiscating their mattresses. It seemed as if they had lost sight of the prisoners' humanity, as they ruthlessly wielded their newfound power. As one guard stated, "Looking back now, I'm impressed how little I felt for them". Some prisoners became passive and obedient, accepting the guards' cruel treatment; others were released early due to 'extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety'. How can we explain this fiasco? The guards and prisoners, it seemed, took their assigned SOCIAL ROLES and ran way too far with them. Social Roles guide our behavior and represent the positions we hold in social groups, and the responsibilities and expectations associated with those roles. We should note that this experiment took place in a time when prisoners were under intense public scrutiny. Some scholars suggest that the participants were 'acting out their stereotypic images' of guards and prisoners, and behaving in accordance with the researchers' expectations. Nevertheless, the Stanford Prison Experiment did shed light on the power of social roles. It also generated quite a storm of controversy. The study had been approved by the University's review committee, and it did not violate the existing standards of the APA, yet many people questioned its ethical validity. The APA sine has changed its guidelines, and the Stanford Prison Experiment would no longer be considered acceptable. Although the ethics of the study have been questioned, its findings continue to shed light on contemporary events. In 2004 news broke that American soldiers and intelligence officials at IRAQ'S ABU GHRAIB prison had beaten, sodomized, and forced detainees to commit degrading sexual acts. The similarities between Abu Ghraib and the Stanford Prison are remarkable. In both cases, authority figures threatened, abused, and forced inmates to be naked. Those in charge seemed to derive pleasure from violating and humiliating other human beings. Healthy people behave according to social roles (Stanford Prison Experiment). What factors contributed to the events that occurred at abu ghraib prison? -In group vs out group thinking negative stereotypes -Dehumanization and prejudice -Process similar to zimbardo's stanford prison experiment -Not just following orders but also following implied social norms and roles

Review the Jungian archetypes (hero, maiden, sidekick, animus/anima, etc)

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was another influential neo-freudian. Jung's focus was on growth and self-understanding. Although he agreed with Freud about the importance of the unconscious, in his ANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY he placed less emphasis on biological urges (sex and aggression), proposing more positive and spiritual aspects of human nature. Critical of Freud's overemphasis on the sex drive, Jung claimed that Freud viewed the brain as 'an appendage to the genital glands'. Jung proposed we are driven by psychological energy (not sexual energy) that promotes growth, insight, and balance. He also believed personality development is not limited to childhood; adults continue to evolve throughout life. Jung also differed from Freud in his view of the unconscious. Jung believed personality is made up of the ego (at the conscious level), A Personal Unconscious, and A Collective Unconscious. The personal unconscious is similar to Freuds notion of the precocious and unconscious mind; items from the personal unconscious range from easily retrievable memories to anxiety provoking repressed memories. The collective unconscious, according to Jung, holds the universal experiences of humankind passed from generation to generation, memories that are not easily retrieved without some degree of effort or interpretation. We inherit a variety of primal images, patterns of thoughts, and storylines. The themes of these ARCHETYPES may be found in art, literature, music, dreams, and religions across time, geography, and culture. Some of the consistent archetypes include the nurturing mother, powerful father, innocent child, and brave hero. Archetypes provide a blueprint for us as we respond to situations, objects, and people in our environments. The ANIMA refers to the part of our personality that is Feminine, and the ANIMUS to that which is masculine. Jung believed both of these parts exist in everyone's personality, and we must acknowledge and appreciate them. Failure to accept the anima and animus can result in imbalance, which prevents us from being whole. *CIERA* Carl Jung -Analytic Psychology -Influenced by culture, mythology, philosophy and religion -Archetypes -Schemas across culture -Mental images of universal human instincts, themes and preoccupations -Common archetypal themes expressed in virtually every culture (collective unconscious) Themes: -Mother figure (caregiver) -Shadow (dark side of ego) -Persona (mask worn in public) -Anima/Animus (feminine side of man/masculine side of women) -Hero (represents the ego) -Maiden (usually love interest) -Side kick (buddy) -Father figure (authority figure) -Wise old man (guidance) -Trickster (joker pranks) -Eternal child (baby jesus) -^Harry Potter: -Hero - harry potter -Sidekick - hermoine -Mum - McGonagall -Eternal child - hagrid -Maiden - ginny -Trickster - weasley twins -Shadow - voldemort -Wise old man - Dumbledore Introversion vs. Extraversion: -Extroverts: ego facing outward -Introverts: ego facing inward, internal thoughts and feelings Neo-Freudian Strengths: -Addressed what Freud ignored ^Culture, later in life span, interpersonal relationships -New concepts ^Intro, extraversion ^Parenting style ^Collective unconscious -Arguably bigger influence than Freud Neo Freudian Weaknesses: -Lack of empirical evidence -Patients are participants ^Lacked information about high functioning people ^Focused a lot of people with psychology disorders -Oversimplified concepts

Review the research on implicit personality theory

IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORY Prior social and cultural experiences influence cognitive schemas about traits and behaviors of different types of people -Physical appearance important -Beautiful = good, ugly = bad Implicit personality theory and physical appearance: Research shows beautiful people perceived as: -More intelligent -Happier -Better adjusted -Attribute positive qualities to attractive people: intelligent, strong, sensitive, honest, sociable -Attractive people earn higher wages and more satisfied with life

Review the information on cognitive dissonance

Most people would agree that cheating on a girlfriend, boyfriend, or spouse is not right. Even so, some people contradict their beliefs by seeking sexual gratification outside their primary relationships. How do you think cheating makes a person feel-relaxed and at peace? Probably not. The tension that results when a behavior (in this case, cheating) clashes with an attitude ('cheating is wrong') is known as COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. One way to reduce cognitive dissonance is to adjust the behavior (stop fooling around). Another approach is to change the attitude to better match the behavior ('cheating is actually good for our relationship, because it makes me a better partner'). Such attitude shifts often occur without our awareness. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance was brought ti light in a study by Leon Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith (1959). Imagine you are a participant in this classic study. The researchers have assigned you a very boring task- placing 12 objects on a tray and then putting them back on the shelf, over and over for 30 minutes. Upon finishing, you spend an additional 30 minutes twisting 48 pegs ever so slightly, one peg at a time, again and again and again. How would you feel at the end of the 30 minutes- pretty bored, right? Regardless of how you may feel about these activities, you have been paid money to conceive someone else that they are a blast: 'I had a lot of fun doing this task, it was intriguing and exciting'. Unless you like performing repetitive behaviors like a robot, we assume you would feel some degree of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, or tension resulting from this mismatch between your attitude ('ugh this is so boring) and your behavior (saying, 'I had so much fun!'). What could you do to reduce the cognitive dissonance? If you're like the participants in the study, you would probably adjust your attitude to better fit your claims. In other words, you would rate the task more interesting than it actually was. But heres the interesting part: The students who were paid more money ($20 versus $1) were less inclined to change their attitudes to match their claim- a sign that they felt less cognitive dissonance. Apparently, the big bucks made it easier to justify their lies. 'I said I liked the boring task because I got paid $20, not because I actually liked it.' Another example, we all know that smoking is bad for the body, but smokers around the world continue to light up. You would think the awareness of health risks might lead to negative attitudes about smoking, as well as Cognitive Dissonance during the act ('Smoking is dangerous; I am smoking, and this doesn't feel right). Reducing the conflict between the attitude and behavior could be accomplished in one of two ways: by changing the attitude or changing the behavior. Which path do smokers take? It appears that smokers often take a third route: thought suppression. They reduce cognitive dissonance by suppressing thoughts about the health implications of smoking. This helps explain why so many smokers don't change their behavior when concerned friends and family members remind them of the dangers. So what should loved ones do to discourage the habit? One strategy is to reduce beliefs about positive outcomes, like pointing out that smoking is not effective as a social lubricant or relaxation aid. Attributions help us make sense of events and behaviors, and attitudes provide continuity in the way we think and feel about the surrounding world. *Ciera* Attitudes -Attitudes are relatively stable thoughts, feelings, and responses one has toward people, situations, and ideas, and things. -Sources ^cognitive, affective, and behavioral components -Nurture ^Attitudes are developed through experiences and interactions with the people in our lives, and even through exposure to meda (via classical conditioning and observational learning) How do attitudes affect behavior? -Do we always act in accordance with our attitudes? -Most likely to act in accordance with attitudes when ^Anticipate favorable outcome for doing so ^Attitudes are extreme/frequently expressed ^Formed through direct experience ^Very knowledge about subject ^Vested interested in subject and personally something gain to lose Cognitive dissonance: unpleasant state of psychological tension (dissonance) that occurs when inconsistency between 2 thoughts -I want all the health benefits of long term sobriety.. But i want to drink right now -I want no part of obama's socialized medicine... but he better not touch my medicare -I want mandatory drug testing for all recipients of government subsidized social services... but except for college student financial assistance programs How Cognitive dissonance leads to attitude change -Cognitions conflict and behavior conflicts with attitude or belief -Then there is tension (cognitive dissonance) -Then efforts to reduce dissonance: ^Reject belief ^Change behavior ^Deny the evidence ^Rationalize How does behavior affect attitudes? -Cognitive dissonance = unpleasant = want to reduce it -When aware that behavior and attitudes in conflict ^Rationalize behavior to make it consistent with attitude -What if you can't justify behavior? ^Change attitude to make it consistent with behavior -Examples of Cognitive Dissonance: -End of the world predictions -Drug use -Cheating

Review and know well all of the aspects and findings Milgram's study on obedience

OBEDIENCE occurs when we change our behavior, or act in a way we might not normally act, because we have been ordered to do so by an authority figure. In these situations, an imbalance of power exists, and the person with more power (for example, a teacher, cop, doctor, or boss) generally has an advantage over someone with less power (who is more likely to be obedient out of respect, fear, or concern). Back in the 1960's, psychologist Stanley Milgram was interested in determining the extent to which obedience can lead behaviors that most people would consider unethical. Milgram conducted a series of examining who far people would go, particularly in terms of punishing others, when urged to do so by an authority figure. Participants were told the study was about memory and learning (another example of research deception). The sample included teachers, salespeople, post office workers, engineers, and laborers, representing a whole range of educational backgrounds, from elementary school dropouts to people with graduate degrees. Upon arriving at the Yale university lab, participants were informed they would be using punishment as a part of a learning experiment. They were then asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat; the slip told them they had been randomly assigned the 'teacher' role, although the truth was that a confederate always played the role of the 'learner' (the hat contained two slips that both read "teacher"). To start, the participant was asked to sit in a learner's chair, so that he could experience a 45-volt shock, just to know what the learner might be feeling. The teacher was told that the goal was for the learner to memorize a set of paired words. The teacher sat at a control table that held a control panel for the generation of shocks. The panel went from 15 volts to 450 volts, and as you can see, this range of voltage was labeled from 'slight shock' to 'XXX'. The teacher was then told he was to administer a shock each time the learner made a mistake, and the the shock was to increase by 15 volts for every mistake. The learner was located in a separate room, arms strapped to a table and electrodes attached to his wrists; the electrodes were reportedly attached to a shock generator. As you might have concluded, the learner (the confederate) was not really going to receive any true shocks, but had a script of responses he was going to make as the experiment continued. The learner's behaviors, including the mistakes he made and his responses to the increasing shock levels (including mild complaints, screaming, references to his heart condition, pleas for the experiment to stop, and total silence as if he were unconscious or dead), were identical for all participants. A researcher in a white lab coat (also a confederate) always remained in the room with the teacher, and he was insistent that the experiment proceed if the teacher began to question going any further given the learner's responses (such as "Experimenter, get me out of here... I refuse to go on" or "I can't stand the pain") The researcher would say to the teacher, "please continue" and "you have no other choice, you must go on". How many teachers do you think obeyed the researcher and proceeded with the experiment in spite of the learner's desperate pleas? Before the experiment, Milgram asked a variety of people (including psychiatrists and students) to predict how many teachers would be obedient and obey the researcher. Many believed that the participants would refuse to continue at some point in the experiment. Most of the psychiatrists, for example, predicted that 0.125% of participants would continue to the highest voltage. They also guessed that the majority of the participants would quit the experiment when the learner began his protests. Heres what actually happened: 65% of participants continued to the highest voltage level (to the point Milgram said there was 'a whopping discrepancy' between predictions and outcome). Most of these participants were obviously not comfortable with what they were doing (stuttering, sweating, trembling), yet they continued. Even those who eventually refused to proceed went much farther than anyone had predicted (even Milgram himself)- they all used shocks up to atleast 300 volts (labeled as 'intense shock'). We should emphasize that participants were not necessarily comfortable with their role as 'teachers', even when they continued with the experiment. One observer of the study reported the following: "I observed a mature and initially posed businessman enter the lab smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: "Oh god, lets stop it." And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end." This type of research has been replicated in the US and in other countries, and the findings have reminded fairly consistent, with 61-66% of participants continuing to the highest level of shock. Not surprisingly, the criticisms of Milgram's studies were strong. Many were concerned that this research went too far with its deception (it wouldn't receive approval from the IRB today), and some wondered if the participants were harmed by knowing that they theoretically could've killed someone with their choices during the study. Milligram spent time with the participants following the study, and reported that 84% claimed they were 'glad' they had participated, whereas only 1.3% reported they were 'sorry' to have been involved. The participants were seen for psychiatric evaluations a year later, and reports indicate that none of them 'showed signs of having been harmed by his experiences'. Milgram an others have followed up on the original study, to determine if there were specific factors or characteristics that made it more likely someone would be obedient in this type of scenario. Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of Milgram's original research, with the exception of stopping the experiment at the 150-volt level. In Burger's study, 70% of participants went to the highest level of voltage (150 volts), which is a slightly lower percentage than continued to the 150-volt in the original study. Several key factors determined whether participants were obedient in these studies: 1. The legitimacy of the authority figure (the more legitimate, the more obedience demonstrated by the participants); 2. The closeness of the authority figure (the closer the experimenter was to the participants, the higher level of their obedience); 3. The closeness of the Learner (the closer the learner, the less obedient the participant); and 4. The presence of other Teachers (if another confederate was acting as an obedient teacher, the participant was more likely to obey as well). Milligram's initial motivation for studying obedience came from learning about the horrific events of WWII and the Holocaust, which 'could only have been carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders'. And he found the same types of responses in his experiments on obedience. One ray of hope did shine through in his later experiments, and that was how participants responded the they saw others refuse to obey. In one follow-up experiment, two more confederates were included un the study as additional 'teachers'. If these confederates showed signs of refusing to obey the authority figure, the research participant was far less likely to cooperate. In fact, Milgram reported that in this type of setting, only 10% of the research participants were willing to carry on with the Learning Experiment. What this suggests is that one person can make a difference, and when someone stands up for what is right, others will follow that lead. Stanley Milgram's study on OBEDIENCE and authority was one of the most ground breaking and surprising experiments in all of social psychology. Milgram wanted to test the extent to which we will follow the orders of an authority figure. Would we follow orders to hurt someone Milgram's experiment also raises the ethical issues of deception and informed consent. Participants had to actually think they were shocking another person for the experiment to work. Creating this deception involved the use of confederates (people secretly working for the researchers) whose behaviors and spoken responses were carefully scripted. Milgram found high levels of obedience in his participants- much higher than he and others had predicted at the beginning of the study. All three groups predicted that all subjects (the teachers) would refuse to obey at some point

Review the information in the textbook on the persistence of traits over time and the genetic and environmental influences of traits

Of all the NATURE-NURTURE conversations occurring in the field of psychology, there is atleast one arena where nurture seemingly appears to dominate: Attitudes. Our attitudes develop through experiences and interactions with the people in our lives, and even through exposure to media. (via Classical Conditioning and Observational Learning). That being said, genetic factors do play a role. But to what degree? One of the best ways to gauge the Relative Weights of NATURE AND NURTURE is through the study of twins. If nature has a substantive effects on Attitudes, them the following should be true: Identical twins (who have the same genetic make up) should have more similar attitudes than fraternal twins (who share about 50 percent of their genes). How do you feel about rollercoasters? Alcohol consumption? The death penalty? These are just a few of the attitude topics researches have explored in the context of Nature and Nurture. One study of several hundred pairs of twins concluded that most of the attitude variation among participants resulted from non shared environmental factors, or distinct life experiences. But a significant proportion of attitude differences-about 35%- was related to genes. Those that correlated strongly with genes centered on abortion, the death penalty, playing sports, riding rollercoasters, and reading books. Does that mean each of us is born with a 'pro life' or 'pro choice' gene, and yet another gene that determines how we feel about sports? Highly unlikely. As the researchers point out, genes probably exert their effects indirectly, through personality traits and other genetically determined characteristics. For example, someone who is born with a very athletic physique (muscular frame or quick reaction time, for example) may become fond of sports because she is so good at them. In this case, the physical traits mediate the relationship between genes and attitudes. Attitudes can change, but genes are very stable. More recent research, also involving twins, offers evidence that political attitudes are influenced by genes. As with the Olson study, the relationship between genes and attitudes appears to be indirect; personality traits, which are highly heritable, seem to predispose people to certain political attitudes. But as the researchers point out, family members and peers can also mold political inclinations. It makes good sense if you think about it: If someone important to you takes a certain political stance, it might seem more appealing, or atleast tolerable. The bottomline: NURTURE may come out ahead in this particular case, but nature holds its own. We have established that attitudes are shaped by experience and, to a lesser extent, heredity. Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists. Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person's unique genetic code. In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. It is widely accepted now that heredity and the environment do not act independently. Both nature and nurture are essential for any behaviour, and it cannot be said that a particular behaviour is genetic and another is environmental. It is impossible to separate the two influences as well as illogical as nature and nurture do not operate in a separate way but interact in a complex manner.

Review the definition of Personality

PERSONALITY refers to the unique core set of characteristics that influence the way one thinks, acts, and feels- characteristics many psychologists would agree are relatively consistent and enduring throughout the life span. Personality is the not the equivalent of character. When people discuss Character, they other are referring to qualities of morality or culture specific ideas about what makes a person 'good' or 'bad'. A person who is untrustworthy or makes 'poor' choices might be described as having a weak character, while someone who stands up for what they believe might be said to have a strong character. You may hear that the guy with the blue mohawk or the woman with the multiple body piercings is a 'real character'-often in a judgmental way. Psychologists try not to make such judgements; their goal is to describe behaviors and characteristics objectively. Some aspects of adult personality appear to derive from Temperament, the distinct patterns of emotions reactions and behaviors observed early in life. Because various temperaments are evident in infants, they appear to have a genetic basis. And although temperament remains somewhat stable across the lifespan, it can be molded by environment. You can think of temperament as one dimension of the broader construct of personality. Psychologists explain the development of personality in a number of ways, often in accordance with certain theoretical perspectives. None of these perspectives can completely account for the development and expression of personality, but they do help describe, explain, and predict behavior. Humor is very much like the other aspects of personality-grounded in biology, but chilled and refined by a lifetime of experiences.

Know the definition of social psychology and the components of social psych research

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY is the study of human cognition, emotion, and behavior in relation to others. Throughout this text, we have emphasized the importance of the Biopsychosocial perspective, which recognizes the biological, psychological, and social forces underlying human behavior. This chapter focuses on the third aspect of that triad: Social Forces. Social psychology explores the way individuals behave in relation to others and groups, while sociology examines the groups themselves-their cultures, societies, and subcultures. A social psychologist studying religion might focus on the relationship between congregants and their spiritual leaders. A sociologist would more likely investigate religious practices, rituals, and organizations. The most obvious differences lie in the Methods used to conduct research. Lets look t how social psychologist design their experiments. Social psychologist use the same general research methods as other psychologist, but often with an added twist of Deception. Deception is sometimes necessary because people do not always behave naturally when they know they are being observed. Some participants try to conform to expectations; others do just the opposite, behaving in ways that will contradict the researchers predictions. Suppose a team of researchers is studying facial expressions in social settings. If participants know that every glance and grimace are being analyzed, they may feel self-conscious and display atypical facial expressions. Instead of telling participants the real focus of the study, researchers might lead them to believe they are participating in a study on, say, problem solving. That way, they can study the behavior of interest (facial expressions in social settings) more naturally. Social Psychology studies often involve Confederates, who are people who secretly working for the researchers. Playing the role of participants, experimenters, or simply bystanders, confederates say what the researchers tell them to say and do what the researchers tell them to do. They are, unknown to other participants, just part of the researchers' experimental manipulation. In most cases, the deception is not kept secret forever. Researchers debrief their participants at the end of a study or review aspects of the research initially kept under wraps. Even after learning about the deceit, many participants report they are willing to take part in subsequent psychology experiments. Debriefing is also a time when researchers make sure that participants were not harmed or upset by their involvement in a study. We should note that all psychological research affiliated with colleges and universities must be approved by an IRB to ensure no harm will come from participation. This requirement is partly a reaction to early studies involving extreme deception and manipulation-studies that many viewed as dehumanizing and unethical. Psychologists agree that deception is only acceptable if there is no other way to study the topic of interest.

Some key terms regarding Freud: free association, id, ego, superego, conscious, preconscious, unconscious, psychosexual stages of development (definitions and examples of all of them and the order), defense mechanisms (again all of them in the book and the order of adaptiveness), Oedipus complex, psychoanalysis, fixation, and conflict.

^ (everything from above '2.'-Ciera) *Information up there, but this is Ciera's #3 on her study guide* (a lot of this you already know) Personality -Personality: unique and relatively consistent patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving -Temperament: distinct patterns of emotional reactions and behaviors observed early in life -Personality Theory: describes and explains how people are similar, different and why ^No theory can explain all human personality ^Theories have strengths and weaknesses Psychoanalytic Perspective on Personality Theory: -Freud -Physician -Influenced by Joseph Breuer ^Case of Anna O. -Asserted sexuality was fundamental human motive and aggression was second powerful human instinct -Theory is an approach on therapy and theory of personality -Unconscious mind -Conflicting psychological forces -Free Association: a psychoanalytic technique in which the patient spontaneously reports all thoughts, feelings and mental images as they come to mind -Conscious -Preconscious -Unconscious -Iceberg Model: ^Tip: conscious level -Below surface: Id ID -Instinctual drive present at birth -Does not distinguish reality from fantasy -Operates according to pleasure principle -Obtain pleasure and avoid tension or discomfort -Most fundamental human motive -Guiding principle of id -Immune to logic EGO -Develops after infancy -Understands reality and logic -Acts as a mediator between id and superego -Reality Principle: ability to postpone gratification in accordance with demands of external world -"Anxiety" ^Denial, projection, rationalization, displacement, identification sublimation. SUPERGO -At age 5 or 6, child develops an internal, parental voice that is partly conscious -Internalization of parental and society's moral standards -Responsible for guilt; praises and admonishes Freud's Psychosexual Stages (p.475) -Oral (birth to 1.5 years) -Anal (1.5 to 3 years) -Phallic (3 to 6 years) -Latency (6 to puberty) -Genital (puberty and beyond) -People progress through five stages of development -Adult personality established in the first 5 years of life -Child progress through oral, anal and phallic psychosexual stages -Fixation ^At each stage, the child is faced with a developmental conflict that must be resolved ^Frustrated = unmet needs characteristic that stage ^If overindulged = child may be reluctant to move on to the next ^In either case, result of an unresolved developmental conflict is fixation The Oedipus Complex: -Childs unconscious sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent, usually accompanied by hostile feelings toward the same-sex parent -Boys: -Confrontation with father for the affections of mother -Boy feels hostility and jealousy toward his father -Realizes that father is more physically powerful -Boy experiences castration anxiety, or fear that father castrate him -To resolve, boy uses identification - imitates and internalizes father's values, attitudes and mannerisms -Girls: -Little girl discovers that little boys have a penis and that she does not -Feels a sense of deprivation and loss - penis envy -Attempts to take her mother's place with her father, she also identifies with her mother -One of the most critiques of Freud's ideas FREUD'S STRENGTHS: -First theory of personality -Conscious, preconscious and unconscious -Free association -Id, ego and superego -Defense mechanisms -5 psychosexual stages -popularized psychology topics FREUD'S PROBLEMS -Not as unique as people think -Ideas are not testable -Reliance on case study design -Focus on severe disorders -Overtly sexual and sexist (dont spend too much time) The Neo-Freudians: Agreed with Freud -Unconscious processes -Childhood experiences -Defense mechanisms Disagreed with Freud -Less on biological instincts -Emphases on ego not id -Thought people could change over time KAREN HORNEY: Emphasized the role of relationships between children and their caregivers, not erogenous zones and psychosexual stages. She believed individuals respond to feelings of helplessness and isolation created by inadequate parenting, which she referred to as Basic Anxiety. In order to deal with this anxiety, Horney suggested that people use three strategies: moving toward people (looking for affection and acceptance), moving away from people (looking for isolation and self-sufficiency), or moving against people (looking to control others). Horney believed that a balance of these three strategies is important for psychological stability. She also said girls aren't jealous of the penis, but the power and status it represents. -Not biological, but cultural/social -Neurosis a result of treatment in early childhood ^Overly strict parents ^Neglect ^Abuse ^Leads to defense mechanisms -Maladaptive personality styles 1. Moving towards people a. Clingy and needy relationships 2. Moving against people a. Aggressive/bullies/antisocial behavior 3. Moving away from people a. Rooted in fear of rejection b. Isolates and avoids others

Review the opponent process theory of addiction

The opponent-process theory states that when one emotion is experienced, the other is suppressed. Common patterns underlie all addiction, indeed all hedonic or pleasure-seeking behavior. Solomon discovered two components in every reaction to an emotional situation. The first component he called the A reaction. It is short-lived and intense. For example, while receiving an award, you may feel great joy at the moment when you are handed your medal or certificate. This response probably correlates with neural activity in the brain; it is quick and almost simultaneous with experience of the emotion-causing stimulus. The B reaction is opposite from the A component in hedonic value. In other words, if the A reaction is a happy emotion, the B reaction is sad, and vice versa. The B response is slower to build and slower to decay. An hour after getting an award, you may feel a bit let down, but the feeling gradually disappears toward the end of the day. Sometimes a B reaction can be rapid. Solomon points out that a small child who is in a good mood can be put into a bad mood by giving the child a lollipop then taking it away. Instead of returning to a neutral emotional state, the child reacts to sudden reinforcement, then removal of the reinforcer, by crying. That reaction is immediate. However, most of the time, a B reaction is slower. The slower B reaction is probably hormonal, involving chemical messengers that move in the bloodstream. An hour after a moment of great excitement, the body's response might be, "You've been under a lot of stress; time to get away from it all, rest, and recuperate." The B response occurs with both pleasure and pain. Both lead to rebound reactions which Solomon called hedonic contrast. Feelings of joy are often followed by a let-down or irritability, a few hours later. Feelings of tension and anger may be followed by a more happy or mellow period. The key to Solomon's theory of addiction is that as an event is repeated the B component becomes larger while the A component becomes smaller. The result, sometimes, is a complete reversal of emotion. An event that was initially fun becomes boring, or an event that was initially terrifying becomes fun. Solomon uses the example of parachute jumping. A beginning parachutist feels a primary emotional response of fear at the prospect of jumping out of a plane. This is the A response: the quick, intense response to a situation. After making the jump, landing on the ground, and returning to the clubhouse, the beginner is typically talkative and excited, as if very happy. This is the B response, a rebound reaction to the earlier fear and a feeling of exhilaration at having conquered it. The A process (anxiety) diminishes as the jump is repeated and is increasingly regarded as a normal event. Meanwhile, the B response grows bigger. In the case of parachute jumping, the pleasant aftereffects grow more pronounced. An experienced jumper may experience a high lasting eight hours after a jump. Eventually the body adjusts and no longer reacts strongly to the formerly emotional experience. A person requires a bigger dose or more extreme stimulus to get the same effect. For example, a gambler requires a bigger bet to get the same high feeling he once got with a small bet. A heroin addict requires larger doses of the drug. The parachute jumper gets bored with ordinary jumping. This is called tolerance. When tolerance builds up, the excitement of the addiction starts to disappear. It becomes routine. The addict may still enjoy the addicting event, yet at the same time it is no longer such a big deal. The thrill is gone. Drug addiction phenomena can be explained with the opponent process theory. First an addictive event causes a large A reaction, for example, great feelings of joy, with possibly a mild depression as an aftereffect. (This is sometimes called the honeymoon period in an addiction.) But after repeated experiences, the joy is greatly reduced. Tolerance occurs; the body adjusts to the drug. The B reaction becomes stronger. In this case, that means the negative aftereffects of taking the drug, such as bad moods or craving, become stronger. Soon the addictive stimulus is badly needed, because the withdrawal period is intensely unpleasant, yet the drug experience itself is nothing special. That is the end of the honeymoon. This does not always happen, so when does it not happen? When does the fun not go out of an activity? The short answer appears to be: When the "A reaction" (the immediate reaction to something) is not strong enough, or repeated often enough, to cause tolerance. Moderate drinking (defined as the equivalent of a glass or wine, a beer, or a shot of liquor per day) does not cause tolerance. A person does not cease to feel it because of the body's adaptation. It also does not "get old." People who are in the habit of drinking a glass of wine for dinner do not get bored with it or find that it no long produces a kick. In a sense, there is no "kick" in the first place, if that word is defined as pushing the hedonic control system to an extreme. There is no strong B reaction, either. A person who has a glass of wine for dinner does not get a hangover or feel sluggish the next day because of it.

Review the and know well the Solomon Asch study on conformity

The tendency to modify our behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and opinions to match those of others is known as CONFORMITY. Sometimes we conform to the Norms or standards of the social environment, such as the group to which we are connected. Unlike compliance, which occurs in repose to an explicit and direct request, conformity is generally unspoken. We often conform because we feel compelled to fit in a group and belong. Social psychologists have studied conformity in a variety of settings, including American colleagues. In a classic experiment by SOLOMON ASCH (1955), college students were asked to sit at a table with six other people, all of whom were confederates working for the researcher. The participants were told to look at two cards, one with a vertical line on it, the standard line, and the other card with three vertical lines, each of different lengths but marked 1, 2, and 3. The group seated at the table was instructed to look at the two cards and then announce, one at a time going around the table, which of the three lines was closest in length to the standard line, thus making a 'visual judgement'. The first two rounds of this task went smoothly, with everybody in agreement about which of the three lines matched the standard. But then, in the third round, the first five confederates at the table offered what was clearly the wrong answer, one after the other (prior to the experiment, the researches had given them instructions about which line to choose in each trial). Would the real participant (the sixth person to answer) follow suit and conform to the wrong answer, or would he stand his ground and report the correct answer? In roughly 37% of these trials, participants went along with the group and provided the incorrect answer. Furthermore, 76% of the participants conformed to the incorrect answers of the confederates atleast once. When members of the Control Group made the same judgements alone in a room, they were correct 99% of the time, confirming that the differences between the standard line and the comparison lines were substantial, and generally not difficult to assess. This type of study was later replicated in a variety of cultures, with mostly similar results. Clearly, people do not always conform to the behaviors of others, but what factors come into play when they do? There are three major reasons for conformity. Most of us want the approval of others, to be liked and accepted. This desire influences our behavior and is known as Normative Social Influence. Think back to middle school- do you remember feeling pressure to be like some of your classmates or friends? This might have been due to a normative social influence to conform, so that you could fit in. A second reason to conform is so we might behave correctly; we look to others for confirmation when we are uncertain about something, and then do as they do. This is known as Informational Social Influence. Perhaps you have a friend who is particularly well read in politics but you are not, or who is extremely knowledgable about psychology. In both cases, your tendency is to defer to their expert knowledge. Third, we sometimes conform to others because they belong to a certain Reference Group we respect, admire, or long to join. Certain conditions increase the likelihood of conforming: 1. The group includes atleast three other people who are unanimous. 2. You have to report your decision in front of others and give your reasons. 3. The task seems difficult to you. 4. You are unsure of your ability to perform the task. Certain conditions decrease the likelihood of conforming: 1. Atleast one other person is going up against the group with you. 2. Group individuals come from individualist or 'me-centered' cultures, meaning they are less likely to conform than those from collectivistic, or more community-centered cultures. When you conform, no one is specifically telling you to do so. Its an urge to modify our behaviors, attitudes, beliefs,a and opinions to match those of others. For example, removing your shoes before you walk into the house because everyone else who has entered is doing the same. Social Influence.

Understand how genetics, reward pathways, memories, stress (CRF), and choice all play into our understanding of addiction

Theories: -Genes -Dopamine -Drug memory -Stress - after this stage, things have gone seriously wrong -Choice GENETIC THEORY: -Genetic predispositions -Shown in twins... if one becomes an alcoholic, the other is most likely to be one too -There is some environmental impact -PKU: after birth they check for PKU. when you suffer from this condition, your body can't metabolize this protein, and if you're not on a diet immediately, then it could look like mental retardation -If alcohol didn't exist in certain areas... Then the protein would never enter the body... same with PKU -Look at sensitivity to alcohol DOPAMINE THEORY: -Reward pathway - meso limbic pathway -Dopamine is Salient- most noticeable or important -Say you put a quarter into a gum ball machine.. You get what you expect. What if you got two gumballs? THIS IS BETTER THAN EXPECTED. This is the meso pathway -Drugs release dopamine. This is much better than expected that's why it's so addictive DRUG MEMORY PATHWAY: -Starts at the Pre Frontal Cortex → another mid brain area (hippocampus) called glutamate neurotransmitters from the PFC into the hippocampus -Turned into a drug hyper reinforcement -As those drug pathways get stronger.. The normal pathways get weaker -Cues & triggers STRESS -Opponent process theory - whatever goes up must come down -Positively reinforced -For example: when our body gets a fever, it wants to reset and go back to homeostasis -Positively reinforced (added to continue a behavior) -Looks like a cosine way when it goes down it is negatively reinforced (withdrawal or compulsive drive - taking away something) -Homeostasis is reset to be higher - ALLOSTASIS - does this to relieve withdrawal -Stress because the person feels like they can't survive without drugs and alcohol -Brain is releasing A LOT OF CRF- hormone and neurotransmitter involved in the stress response -Stress equals the feeling of going down on the graph (longer than it would (allostasis), if it were regular homeostasis) -STRESS= needing that dopamine release CHOICE -Free will is a loaded term - it depends on the proper functioning of the brain -The process of craving - it's an obsession -Person can't get the drugs out of their mind - it's miserable -Its involuntary -Organ- midbrain -Defect - stress induced, pleasure, disfunction, hedonic dysfunction -Symptoms: loss of control, cravings, use despite negative consequences Think of addiction as a disease... 2) acts on a genetic vol 3) in the reward pathway 4) also affecting the emotion in the prefrontal cortex

Have a good understanding of the keys (lifestyle changes) to a successful program of recovery

SUCCESSFUL RECOVERY -Stop using -Avoid drug -Learn how to manage stress -Choice is then restored

Review the information and key terms associated with attributions (self-serving bias, just-world hypothesis, hindsight bias.... etc.)

Say you are on Match.com, looking at the profile page of someone you find hot. On a conscious level, you are tallying up all the interests you have in common and scrutinizing every self-descriptive adjective this person has chosen. There is also some information processing happening outside of your awareness. You might not even realize that this person reminds you of someone you know, like your mom or dad, and that sense of familiarity makes you more inclined yo reach out. Will you contact this person? Whatever your decision may be, it is very much reliant on Social Cognition- the way you think about others, attend to social information, and use this information in you life, both concisely and unconsciously. Joe and Suzy used social condition in forming first impressions of one another. You use social cognition anytime you try to interpret or respond to another person's behavior. Lets take a closer look ate two critical facets of social cognition: Attributions and Attitudes. Just think about how much time you spend wondering why people do the things that they do. The 'answers' you come up with to resolve these questions are called ATTRIBUTIONS. ATTRIBUTIONS are beliefs we develop to explain human behaviors and characteristics, as well as situations. "Why is my friend in a bad mood?" Your attribution might be, "Maybe he just got some bad news" or "Perhaps he is hungry." When psychologists characterize attributions, they use the term Observer to identify the person making the attribution, and Actor to identify the person exhibiting a behavior of interest. If Joe was trying to explain why Suzy had checked out his profile page, then Joe is the Observer and Suzy is the Actor. To make things more manageable, psychologists often describe attributions along three dimensions: Controllable-Uncontrollable dimension: Suppose suzy had been 15 minutes to meet Joe at starbucks. If Joe assumed it had happened because she got stuck in traffic, we would say he was making an uncontrollable attraction. (As far as he knowns, Suzy has no control over the traffic). If, however, Joe assumed that Suzy's lateness resulted from factors within her control, such as how fast she drove or what time she left her house, then the attribution would be controllable. Stable-unstable dimension: Why did Joe cook Suzy a delicious dinner of pork chops? Suzy could infer his behavior stems from a longtime interest in cooking. This would be an example of a stable attribution. With stable attributions, the cause is long lasting. If she thought Joe's behavior resulted from a transient inspiration from watching a really good cooking show, then her attribution would be unstable. With unstable attributions, the cause is temporary. Internal-external dimension: Why did Joe have trouble meeting nice single women before Suzy entered his life? If it was because there were few single women living in his area, this would be an external attribution, because the cause of the problem resides outside of Joe. External attributions are commonly referred to as Situational Attributions, as the causes reside in the environment. If, however, Joe had trouble meeting women because he was reluctant to attend singles events, this would be an internal attribution- the cause is within Joe. For internal attributions, the cause is located inside the person, such as an illness, skill, or attitude. Dispositional Attributions are a particular type of internal attribution in which the resumed causes are traits or personality characteristics. Here, we refer to a subset of internal attributions that are deep-seated, enduring characteristics, as opposed to those that are more transient, like having the flu. If Joe had trouble meeting other singles because he has a shy, reversed personality (not actually the case, but lets say for this example), this would be a dispositional attribution. When people make attributions, they are often guessing about the causes of events or behaviors, and this of course leaves plenty room for error. This is particularly true with situational and dispositional attributions. Lets look at the common mistakes. Suppose youre on Match.com and you see someone cute and reach out with a ;-) but never hear back. If you fall prey to the FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR, you might automatically assume the person's failure to respond is from her shyness (a dispositional attribution), but the real reason might be that her internet was down (situational attribution). This is a common tendency; we other think that the cause of other peoples behaviors is a characteristic of them (a dispositional attribution) as opposed to the environment (situational attribution). We easily forget that situational factors can have a powerful effect on behavior, and assume that behaviors are the consequence of a person's disposition. When thinking about what causes or controls behavior, we 'underestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the role of dispositional factors'. How do you think this happens? One suggestion is that we have a tendency to make quick decisions about others, often by labeling them as being certain types of people. Another reason people attribute behaviors to dispositions rather than to situations is that they tend to have much more information about themselves than they do about others. Yet we must make do with the information we have-even if that information is biased and based on our own values and belief systems. This is evident is Just World Hypothesis. People who believe the world is a fair place tend to expect 'bad things' happen for a reason. Their thinking is that when someone is 'bad', it should be no surprise when things don't go well for him. Many people blame the actor in this way by applying the JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS, which assumes that if someone is suffering, he must have done something to deserve it. Participants that heard about the 'bad person' who was violent with his wife, were more likely to predict a bad outcome for him ('he will have a terrible car accident'), than those who heard about the good person, who gave his wife flowers, ('he will win a big business contract'). This just world tendency, to some degree, may result from cultural teachings. Kids in western cultures are taught this concept so that they learn how to behave properly, show respect fro authority figures, and delay gratification. For example, in Cinderella, doves rest on her shoulders prior to her wedding to the prince. As the bridal party enters and leaves the church, the doves poke out the her evil stepsisters' eyes- punishment for being cruel to Cinderella. Through this tale, kids learn that the stepsisters got what they deserved. How'd does the just world belief affect our responses to the fortune or misfortune of others? Would a strong belief in a just world inspire someone to help those living in poverty? Many people would answer yes, because they think of 'just' as 'fair', and fair as 'equality'. But a person who relies on the just world hypothesis would assume the poor are poor because they deserved to be. The tendency to attribute one's successes to internal characteristics and one's failures to environmental factors is known as the SELF SERVING BIAS. Before meeting Joe, Suzy dated a guy who tended to blame his failures on external circumstances. If he lost his job, it was because the boss never liked him- not because his performance fell short. This 'woe is me' attitude annoyed Suzy, who had learned to take responsibility for what happened in her life. As her mother often said to her, "You can be a survivor, or you can be a victim." Suzy's ex appears to have suffered from Self Serving Bias. When trying to decipher the causes of other people's behaviors, we over rely on knowledge about ourselves. This can lead to the FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT, which is the tendency to overestimate the degree to which people think or act like we do. The opposite is also true; when others do not share our thoughts and behaviors, we believe they are acting abnormally or inappropriately. This also consensus effect is evident in our beliefs about everything from celebrities- 'Since i love Jeremy Lin, you should too'- to adolescent substance use- 'I like to use drugs, you should too'. We seem to make this mistake because we have an overabundance of information about ourselves, and often limited information about others. Struggling to understand those around us, we fill in the gaps with what we know about ourselves. This sense of obviousness of psychological findings might be related to the HINDSIGHT BIAS, or the feeling that 'I knew it all along'. When a student learns of a finding from psychology, she may believe she knew it all along because the finding seems obvious to her in retrospect, even though she wouldn't necessarily have predicted the outcome beforehand. We fall prey to the hindsight bias in part because we are constantly seeking to explain events; we come up with plausible explanations after we learn of a finding from psychological research. Or sometimes, students insist they know all there is to know about childhood development, for example, because they are parents. Just becomes a young man has experience as a father doesn't necessarily mean he can observe his family like a scientist. Attribution errors may lead us astray, but we can minimize their impact by being aware of our tendency to fall back on them. *Ciera* Attribution -Beliefs one develops to explain human behavior and characteristics as well as situations Social cognition -Attributions: -Three dimensions -Controllable-uncontrollable -Stable-unstable -Internal-external Attribution Fundamental attribution error -Tendency to overestimate the degree to which the characteristics of an individual are the cause of an event, and to underestimate the involvement of situational factors -ex) they're late because they're just like that - they are that kind of person -But if it was us, we would think there was a situational change such as "oh the bus was late" or "i did bad on the test because i didn't study not because i'm stupid" if it was them they are just a bad student -Opposite for our own behavior - we do not account for external factors in others lives -Why? -Because we know more info about ourselves Social cognition Just-world hypothesis -Tendency to believe the world is a fair place and individuals generally get what they deserve -ex) person gets fired - Observer ignores other possible reasons, such as that the manager would rather hire a friend instead Hindsight bias -After an event has occurred, tendency to overestimate one's ability to have foreseen or predicted the outcome -ex) going for it on fourth down - "i would have went for it" or "i knew that was coming" -Could have predicted in the past - but we say it after the event has happened BLAMING THE VICTIM -Explained by fundamental attribution error -ex) "maybe if you don't want to get raped, don't get blackout drunk. Just a thought." -Explaining behavior -Tendency to blame an innocent victim of misfortune for having somehow caused the problem or for not having taken steps to avoid or prevent it -This bias is reinforced by hindsight bias Why do we blame the victim? -Strong need to believe world is fair - get what we deserve (just world) -Just world hypothesis - because world is just, victim must have done something to deserve it -Helps protect us from uncomfortable thoughts "it could've easily been me" Self-Serving Bias -ex) best poker player -When he wins, he's the best -When he loses, it was the cards -Internal attributions for success -External attributions for failure -Self serving bias -Tendency to attribute successes to personal characteristics and failures to environmental factors

Review the information on reciprocal determinism and Banduras social cognitive theory

Albert Bandura rejected the notion that psychologists should only focus on observable behavior, and recognized the importance of cognitions, reinforcers, and environmental factors. This SOCIAL COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE suggests that personality results from patterns of thinking (cognition) as well as relationships and other factors in the environment (social). Prior experiences have shaped, and will continue to shape, your personality. Cognitive abilities, including knowledge, are partly the result of our interactions with others. We don't spend much time in isolation; in fact, almost everything we do involves some sort of collaboration. We are social creatures who work together and live in family units. Bandura also pointed to the importance of SELF-EFFICACY, which refers to beliefs about our ability and effectiveness in reaching goals; a learned expectation of success. People who exhibit high self efficacy often achieve greater success at work because they are more likely to be flexible and open new ideas. A person who demonstrates low self efficacy generally believes he will not succeed in a particular situation, regardless of his abilities or past experience. Beliefs about self efficacy are influenced by experience and may change across situations. Generally speaking, people who believe they can change and progress are more likely to persevere in difficult situations. Beliefs play a key role in our ability to make decisions, problem solve, and deal with life's challenges. The environment also responds to our behaviors, which in turn are based in part on our beliefs. In essence, we have internal forces (beliefs, expectations) directing our behavior, external forces (reinforcers, punishments) responding to those behaviors, and the behaviors themselves influencing our beliefs and the environment. These three components (cognition, environment, behavior) form a complex system that determines our behavior patterns and personality. Bandura refers to this multidirectional interaction as RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM. For example, a student harbors a certain belief about herself (I am going to graduate with honors). This belief influences her behavior (she studies hard and reaches out to instructors), which affects her environment (teachers take note of her enthusiasm and offer support). Thus, you can see, personality is the result of an ongoing interaction among cognitions, behaviors, and environment. Suggests that personality is shaped by an ongoing interplay of cognitive expectancies, behaviors, and environment.

Review the details of the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City and the bystander effect

THE BYSTANDER EFFECT. When a person is in trouble, bystanders have the tendency to assume (and perhaps wish) that someone else will help- and therefore they stand by and do nothing, partly a result of the Diffusion of Responsibility. This is particularly true when there are many other people present. Strange as it seems, were are more likely to aid a person in distress if no one else is present. So when people encountered the 11 orphans begging on the street, they probably assumed and hoped somebody else would take care of the problem. 'These children must belong to someone; their parents will come back for them.' The most famous illustration of the BYSTANDER EFFECT was the attack on KITTY GENOVESE. It was March 13, 1964, around 3:15 am, when Catherine 'Kitty' Genovese arrived home from work in her Queens, NY neighborhood. As she approached her apartment building, an attacker brutally stabbed her. Kitty screamed for help, but initial reports suggested that no one came to her rescue. The attacker ran away, and Kitty stumbled into her apartment building. But soon her returned, raping and stabbing her to death. The New York Times originally reported that 38 neighbors heard her cries for help, witnessed the attack, and did nothing to help. But the evidence suggests that the second attack occurred inside her building, where few people could have witnessed it. The story Kitty prompted social psychologists to study why nobody helped: Social Psychologists found that before helping, we must first notice the incident, then interpret it as such, and then feel responsible. Leads to research on altruism and prosocial behavior.

Review the information on in-groups and out groups, stereotype, prejudice, discrimination, altruism, prosocial behaviors, and ethnocentrism

Typically, we associate aggression with behavior, but it can also exist in the mind, coloring our Attitudes about people and things. This is evidence by the existence of STEREOTYPES- the conclusions or inferences we make about people who are different from us, based on their group membership (such as race, religion, age, or gender). Stereotypes are often negative ('blonde people are dumb), but they can also be positive ('asians are good at math'). Either way, Stereotypes can be harmful. Stereotypes are often associated with a set of perceived characteristics that we think describe members of a group. The stereotypical college professor is absentminded, absorbed in thought, and unapproachable. The quintessential motorcycle rider is covered in tattoos, and the teenage with he tongue ring is rebelling against her parents. What these all have in common is that they're not objective or based on empirical research. In other words, they are like bad theories of personality that characterize people based on a single behavior or trait. These stereotypes typically include a variety of predicted behaviors and treats that are rooted in subjective observations and value judgements. For example, a white man approached a black man and asked "is it true people in Africa still walk around naked?" This man was relying on an inaccurate stereotype of African people. The underlying message was clearly an aggressive one; he judged African people to be primitive and not as advanced as he was. Evolutionary psychologists would suggest that stereotypes allowed beings to quickly identify the group to which they belonged- an adaptive trait, given that groups provide safety. But because we tend to think our group is superior, we may draw incorrect conclusions about members of other groups, or outsiders in general. We tend to see the world in terms of the IN GROUP (the group to which we belong, or us) and the OUT GROUP (those who are outside to the group in which we belong, or them). For better or worse, our affiliation with an In Group helps us from our Social Identity, or view of ourselves within a social group, and this process begins at a very young age. Those in your in group may influence your behaviors and thoughts more than you realize. Seeing the world from the narrow perspective of our own group may lead to ETHNOCENTRISM. This term is often used in reference to cultural groups, yet it can apply to any group (think of football teams, glee clubs, college rivals, or nations). We tend to see out own group as 'the one' that is worthy of emulation, the superior group. This^ type of group identification can lead to stereotyping, discussed earlier, and DISCRIMINATION, which involves showing favoritism or hostility to others because of their affiliation within a group. Those in the Out Group are particularly vulnerable to becoming scapegoats. A SCAPEGOAT is the target of negative emotions beliefs, and behaviors. During periods of major stress (such as an economic crisis), scapegoats are often blamed for upsetting social situation (such as high employment). People who harbor stereotypes and blame scapegoats are more likely to feel PREJUDICE, hostile or negative attitudes toward individuals or groups. While prejudice and explicit racism have declined in the US over the last half century, there is still considerable evidence that negative attitudes persist. The same is true when it comes to sexual orientation, disabilities, and religious beliefs. The causes of prejudice are complex and varied. Cognitive aspects of prejudice include the just world hypothesis, which assumes that another person has done something to deserve the bad things that are happening to him. This type of belief can lead to feelings that a person should be able to control events in his life, which in turn can lead to feelings of anger and hostility. Prejudice may also result from conformity if a person seeks approval from others with strong prejudicial views. Prejudice can be reduced when people are forced to work together toward a common goal. People whose stories send a positive message, illuminating what is best about human relationships, like the capacity to love and feel empathy. They epitomize the positive side of social psychology. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR is behavior aimed at benefiting others. After meeting the orphans in 2003, Julius kept his promise to assist them, writing his family $150 a month to cover the cost of food, clothing, school uniforms, tuition, and other necessities- even when he and his wife were struggling to stay afloat. It feels good to give to others, even when you receive nothing in return. The satisfaction derived from knowing you made someone feel happier, more secure, or appreciated is enough of a reward. The desire or motivation to help others with no expectations of payback is called ALTRUISM. Empathy, or the ability to understand and recognize another emotional point of view, is a major component of Altruism.

Review the info on the disease model of addiction; including the organ involved and the defect involved as well as the important neurotransmitters involved (and how they are involved)

What is a disease? -Organ → defect of organ → leads to symptoms For example: femur → fracture → deformity, swelling (curable) For example: pancreas → stops producing insulin → blindness, numbness, high blood glucose, get wounds (not curable) How does addiction fit in the disease model? -Phrenology: measure parts of skull can predict psychological behaviors of a person -Shaped by experience over a lifetime Parts of brain affected by addiction: -Prefrontal cortex (executive function, personality, thinking, planning) -Ventral tegmental area (reward pathway - older part of brain) -Nucleus accumbens (survival area) 1954 and 1955 - touch rats brain, rats can press a lever above anything else in their life - Olds and Miller) Addiction is a disease - organ, defect, symptoms OLDS AND MILLER: -Rat would continue to press this lever so this part of the brain would be stimulated -For a non-addict a drug is a drug -For an addict a drug is for survival Survival list -Water, food, instinct to fight - however the drug will take a formulate and be brought to the top of the list -Person lacks the ability to not let pleasure get in the way of survival ORGAN involved in addiction is the MIDBRAIN DEFECT: stress induced, pleasure, disfunction, hedonic dysfunction SYMPTOMS: loss of control, cravings, use drug despite negative consequences