March 22 and March 24 Lecture Notes
March 22 and March 24 Lecture Notes 76884
Popular in PSYC4201W
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 10 page Class Notes was uploaded by Rachel Onefater on Thursday March 24, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to 76884 at George Washington University taught by Dr. George Howe in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 18 views. For similar materials see PSYC4201W in Psychlogy at George Washington University.
Reviews for March 22 and March 24 Lecture Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/24/16
Social Fields: • Friends and peers • Work relationships • Intimate partners/close family members *NOTE: The things in the face of stressis it a protective process to engage/associate? • Two sides: – Relationships as stressors→ They can stress us out/be the triggers – Relationships as protective against stress→ help focus away from the stress that is occurring in our lives Social interactions that increase stress response •Social exclusion/rejection: deliberate exclusion of individual from social interaction or relationship → A.K.A Shunning/ignore their existence for some time(term coined in the Middle Ages) • Social evaluation: a negative evaluative judgment shared and communicated by others → These are not independent of each othersomeone rejected or excluded from a group may also feel judged •Critical attac: Direct communication that one is deficient or devalued. Example : You left your nail clippings in the sink. You are an asshole! a. Extreme form : psychological or emotional abuse. • Physical attack: Slapping, hitting, choking, attacking with a weapon Evaluation, exclusion and stress response • Lab studies of exclusion • Stroud, Salovey, & Epel (2002) Sex differences in stress responses: Social rejection versus achievement stress. • Randomly assigned students to two conditions: – Achievement challengessomeone may have to do hard math problems, for example. • Complex math problems, memorizing many lines of poetry( Paradise Lost, Milton): with message that most students found these tasks easy – Social exclusion challengeswe want you to talk about social college life/friendships, and 203 people(research assistants) were slowly and methodically ignoring the group member • Discussion with two other students about college life and friendships: other students trained to slowly exclude other from conversation • Assessed change in cortisol by taking saliva samples several times Findings •Manipulation check : students reported more negative and less positive affect following both conditions. *NOTE: More negative affect reported after achievement than the social exclusion challenge than positive affect Cortisol response • Achievement challenge : strong increases for men, little for women • Social exclusion challenge: strong increases for women, little for men Critical thinking minute: Limitations? Ways to improve future studies? → Claim: putting people in these challenging situation will lead to changes in cortisol Could be other things going on at the time of the test discussion about college life can induce more stress than either challenges there is no control group→ contrasting them headtohead against each other, but we have no exposure control group gender of the research assistantsthis may be an intimidating factor is they were two women or two men. Appears to be particularly strong in adolescence • Stroud et al (2009) Stress response and the adolescent transition: Performance versus peer rejection stressors. • Compared children (712) with adolescents (1317) in two tasks Performance stress (public speaking, mental arithmetic) Peer rejection (being excluded when with two others) Effects on various biological markers of stress response • Performance stress led to more cortisol responsewith HPA axis may take longer • Rejection stress led to more blood pressure responsedirect response to the sympathetic nervous system/increase in b.p. suggests increase in activation of the sympathetic nervous system(i.e. adrenaline) • Effects stronger for adolescents *NOTE: Social exclusion may lead to immediate reactivity whereas performance stress may have slower results, but may last longer Social evaluative threat • Zoccola, Dickerson, & Lam (2012) Eliciting and maintaining ruminative thought: The role of socialevaluative threat. – Hypothesized that social evaluative threat would increase subsequent rumination – Lab study: All students asked to prepare and deliver a speech on why they were an ideal job candidate – Randomly assigned to present in front of video camera: • Alone • With two researchers in lab coats with clipboards, who maintained stoic unresponsive facial expression and eye contact Measurement of rumination • 10 minute quiet period after task • Questionnaire about speechrelated thoughts: – How well I handled it? How bad my speech was? • Completed 10 and 40 minutes later •Debriefing – Task was described as ery challenging – Those in SET condition were told that the RAs had been instructed to be nonresponsive • Followup assessment of rumination 35 days later Findings • Social evaluative threat condition increased reports of rumination even 35 days later • Evidence that this was due to increases ishamerelated thoughts (ashamed, embarrassed, stupid, defective, humiliated, exposed) → repetitive experiences like this may be things that lead us into a cyclic trap, especially if you are already prone to negative rumination or have experience with mental illness(i.e. depression) Exclusion/rejection and evaluation: Recent summary of research • Dickerson & Zoccola (2013) Cortisol responses to social exclusion. – Salient rejection or evaluatioelicits cortisol reaction – Exclusion or evaluation triggerrumination, which is associated with continued cortisol response – Chronic forms of social exclusion (e.g., loneliness, peer victimization) associated with chronically dysregulated cortisol. *NOTE: impact of loneliness may be related to the evolution of our species. Emotional or physical abuse • National Comorbidity Survey – Nationally representative sample of 9892 adults – Conducted diagnostic interviews to evaluate prevalence of DSMIV psychiatric disorders – Collected retrospective data onchildhood adversities • Parental mental illness • Parental substance abuse • Parental criminality • Family violence • Physical abuse • Sexual abuse • Neglect Lifetime prevalence of depression, anxiety disorders • Green et al. (2010) Childhood adversities and adult psychiatric disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication I: Associations with first onset of DSMIV disorders. → anything above 100%(i.e. average) means you have an increased risk for these disorders neglect and sexual abuse have the highest rate for having depression Prevalence of all disorders by age → increase risk for diagnosis of disorders in childhood, but persist throughout their lives Critical thinking minute: Limitations? → that is going on in young adulthood and later adulthood may underrepresent because of trauma or compartmentalization → Selfreport may not be reliable → Exclusion and isolation may persist through adulthood, so the impact is contemporaneous with what is going on in your life now, so you can’t tell if the disorder is a result of past or present experiencesconfound! → Memories are not as clear when you get older, so you may be exaggerating certain occurrences of not properly remembering them. Childhood abuse and adult stress response • Schalinski et al (2015) The cortisol paradox of traumarelated disorders: Lower phasic responses but higher tonic levels of cortisol are associated with sexual abuse in childhood. • Studied 43 adult refugees with stressrelated disorder (8085% most with PTSD) – Half had history of childhood sexual abuse, other half had not, also had a recent history with being exposed to severe traumas • Collected cortisol in two ways: – Salivary cortisol before, during, after trauma interview – Cortisol in hair(assesses longerterm cortisol release) Findings • Those with history of childhood sexual abuse had less cortisol reactivity Longer term cortisol releasenumb to the kind of stress they have experienced • Early and recent trauma history was positively associated with hair cortisol concentrations, controlling for current symptoms (partial correlations). Number of trauma in your life is positively associated with the number of cortisol in your hair Unresolved paradox? • Repeated cortisol reactivity after trauma may change the cortisol response system itself – More variability, less regulation of the response – Which may lead over time to blunting of the daily cortisol cycle and cortisol response • But that only accounts for the salivary cortisol finding • If response is blunted, how did those with history of trauma come to have elevated hair concentrations? From oneway to reciprocal views of social relationships Cycles of interaction in close relationships • Close, stable relationships – Parent and child – Longstanding friendships – Workplace collaborations – Intimate partners • Behavior in such relationships is more: – Interdependent (each person’s actions can influence both people’s goals) → Situations where my behavior not only influence my goals, but also your goals, and your behavior influences your goals and my goals – Mutually influentia (each person’s behavior influences how the other person acts) – Cyclic (dyads develop repetitive cycles of interaction) → we fall into patterns, and we are less flexible when we fall into certain patterns of interaction Interaction cycles • Can differ on amount of: – Validation: supportive statements of caring, valuing, and concern for the other – Invalidatio: critical, hostile, blameful, or attacking statements – Engagement : remaining focused on important topics, even if they are difficult – Withdrawal or avoidance: changing the subject, denying responsibility, stonewallingnot responding when someone wants a response from you • Some cycles more likely to increase stress: – Invalidation cycle: reciprocal blaming and attack – Demandwithdraw cycles : one person demands change, the other avoids or withdraws Demandwithdraw interaction cycles • Eldridge et al (2007)DemandWithdraw Communication in Severely Distressed, Moderately Distressed, and Nondistressed Couples: Rigidity and Polarity During Relationship and Personal Problem Discussions. • Studied 182 couples who were severely, moderately, or not maritally distressed • Observed couples as they discussed 4 topics: wife or husband each chose – “Relationship problem” (how I want you to change) – “Personal problem” (how I need to change) • Hypothesis: more rigid “demandwithdraw” cycles in more distressed couples discussing relationship problems Findings • Distressed couples engaged in more demandwithdraw cycles, particularly when discussing relationship problems→ blaming, “you” for relationship problems even though relationships involve two people. • Men more likely to withdraw, women to demand , but more balanced for personal problems, in nondistressed marriages Social relationships as protective? Relationships and emotion regulation • Lakey’s Relational Regulation Theory – Effects of social relationships are not like taking an aspirin – Rather, relating to others helps us regulate our emotions, thoughts, and actions during hard times – Close relationships involve mutual regulation Elements of RRT • What helps? Different strokes for different folks: that is, different people find different things to be supportive. Each relationship may be different. – Husband: “I help by typing her resumes so she has them ready for job interviews” – Wife: “He types my resumes. I don’t really need that, as I still have a secretary, but it’s so sweet!” • Effects occur through everyday interaction, not necessarily through discussions of stress and how to cope with it (“trouble talk”) – Mothers awaiting infant heart surgery: general relationship quality but not enacted support reduced distress (Kaul & Lakey, 2003) – With children and adolescents, offers of companionship were more comforting than discussion of stressors (Clark et al, 2008). • Successful regulation with an interaction partner may make one more open to other forms of support from that person – Developing a trusting relationship opens possibility of more enacted support Other elements of relationships that may modulate stress • Goal support: activities by other that support personal goals, or meaningful objectives people pursue in daily life. • Brunstein et al (1996) Personal Goals and Social Support in Close Relationships: Effects on Relationship Mood and Marital Satisfaction. – Studied couples – Found that receiving goal support from partner was associated with marital satisfaction, and this was amplified by awareness of the other’s goals – Stronger effects for women Other elements of relationships that may modulate stress • Support Equity or reciprocity: balance of giving and receiving – Too much of either can feel aversive – Those in support groups who reported the most benefit also felt they provided equitable support in return (Cohen) Other elements of relationships that may modulate stress •Communication skills : ability tengage in shared problem solving and conflict resolution → having skill to manage that conflict that is reasonable for both sides! Summary • Relationship issues including exclusion, rejection, and hostile conflict are major contributors to stress response • Social support can reduce stress response, but needs to be considered as part of a relationship • The interdependent nature of relationships requires learning how to work together on attaining goals Adjusting for Confounding Common variancecovariance :(def.) Do the variables move in the same direction or is there an overlap in variance? Correlation Matrix: Standardize for comparison across sets of variables: divide by product of SD’s of both variablesthis is also known as the correlation coeff. Standard for error correlation → Correlation based on sample will only be an approx. of the population correlation → Standard error tells us just how much uncertainty there is in the sample estimate Using the standard error to test the null hypothesis: → Null hypothesis:(def.) hypothesis that our population correlation is 0. r=0 → If we divide the correlation by its standard error, this gives a t value: tr/SE → We can use this to estimate the probability of the null hypothesis(also known as p value) → In excel, use the T.DIST.2T Function: →=T.DIST.2T(t value of df) → The second value, df(degrees of freedom), is N2 → NOTE: If the correlation is negative, reverse the sign of the t value a. Example: calculate t value of 2.31 is in cell A4, N is 150. b. =T.DIST.2T(=A4,148) To name a set of numbers: 1. Highlight entire column, including the title 2. Right click, and scroll down to define name, and it will give you the title name or type in a new one 3. Click OK r: Correlation of hassleswith(negative, positive, negative change, positive change) N: sample size (1r^2)(n2): the square root(or sqrt) of this number is the standard error(i.e. fuzziness) Tvalue: correlation value divided by SE (r/SE) P of null(r=0)?: probability of null hyp. T.dist.2t(x, n2) X: tvalue *NOTE: Round to three decimal places: highlight cellsright clickformat cells, number, 3 decimal placesOK Dealing With Confounding → The r value provides evidence relevant for our causal hypothesis: ● If daily stressors(S) cause change in negative emotions(ΔN), then the two should be associated ● A stronger case if daily stressors occur before the change in negative emotions ● But, what about ur final condition: all other plausible causes being equal? ● No random assignment to daily stressors, we can’t count on that Turning to Statistical Adjustment → Suppose we think that some third variable, such as Type A personality(A) might influence both the number of daily stressors (S) and how negative (N) we feel → If so, A might be correlated with either S or N → How would this affect the variances of S and N, as well as their covariance(correlation)? A: the more type A you are the more hassles you are experiencing and/or the more unhappy you feel(i.e. More negative emotions). Yes, with partial correlation ● Partial correlation: the degree of association between two variables with the effects of one or more other variables removed ● 12.3efers to the correlation of variables 1 and 2 with the effects of 3 removed ● Notice that if either r or r are zero, this is equal to the simple correlation of r 13 23 12 ● The formula gets more complicated as we increase the number of potential confounds A more common approach ● Multiple linear regression: a method of evaluating the association of ○ One variable (sometimes called a dependent variable) ○ With several other variables(sometimes called independent variables) ○ Where each association has been adjusted for all other variables Regression Coefficient ● Regression coefficient: ○ The association between an independent and dependent variable ○ Where the effects of all other independent variables are controlled ○ Scaled as the amount that the dependent variable increases for each unit increase in the independent variables ○ Note: the value will not be the same as that for the partial correlation, which has been standardized differently, but significance levels will be identical How to calculate Regression in Excel: 1. DataAddinsAnalysis toolpakGoOK 2. Data analysisRegressionOK(YD.V)Negative(inc. title)(XI.V.)Hassles(Gender through Control)LabelsNew Worksheet and Name itOK 3. Reformatgo to three decimal points like you did earlierFormat cells3pts Could groups Differ? (**Extra Credit) ● Is it possible that the association between stressors and change in emotion could differ from different groups? ● Example: those high or low in sense or locus of control(LOC) of daily stressors ● Simple way to test in regression analysis: ○ Multiply the LOC variable times the stressor variable(i.e. Hassles time Control) ○ Include the new value as a separate I/V(making sure both LOC and stressor variables are also included)> This is for calculating regression ○ Run regression with new variable: if it is significant, the effects differ)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'