Lecture 2: Personality, intelligence, and other socioeconomic outcomes Flashcards Preview

Applications in Psychology > Lecture 2: Personality, intelligence, and other socioeconomic outcomes > Flashcards

Flashcards in Lecture 2: Personality, intelligence, and other socioeconomic outcomes Deck (36)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Why is happiness important?

A
  1. Achievement
    > Happier individuals more likely to graduate from university, secure jobs, attain more ‘prestigious’ work, earn more, perform better, retain their jobs and regain employment more quickly.
    > Happy people strive harder to reach their education- and career-related goals
  2. Health >Happier individuals live longer, have stronger immune system function, and greater pain tolerance
  3. Pro-social behaviour > happier individuals evaluate others more positively, display more trust, volunteer, and behave ethically
2
Q

Defining Happiness (Keseber & Diener 2008)

A

> as subjective experience

  1. Pleasant affect– happiness is feeling good. Preponderance of positive vs. negative affect
  2. Life satisfaction – happiness is an evaluation. Contentment with your state of affairs
3
Q

Define Subject Wellbeing

A

> Proxy for happiness

> Encapsulates emotionality, domain satisfactions and global life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999)

4
Q

What are emotional aspects of SWB?

A

Pleasant affect vs unpleasant affect

5
Q

What are aspects of life satisfaction in SWB?

A

satisfaction with current life, past, future and other’s views of one’s life

6
Q

What are domain satisfactions?

A

work, family, leisure, health, finances, self and one’s group

7
Q

What are the antecedents of SWB?

A
  1. External influences - life events, situations, demographics, etc
  2. Internal influences - Personality, temperament, etc
8
Q

How much role do external influences play in SWB?

A

> less than anticipated
In combination, external variables such as income, religion, physical health etc account for only 8-15% (R = .29-.39) of the variance in SWB

9
Q

What is some more evidence of external influences having little role in SWB?

A

Domain satisfaction across different situations (e.g., work vs leisure) is highly correlated (r > .70)

10
Q

What is the role of social processes in SWB?

A

> social processes are important, but not as important as conventional wisdom suggests (equivalent to income) (Lucas & Diener, 2008; Lucas et al., 2008)
Social processes always positive but rarely over r= .2 (which is an average effect size)

11
Q

What are typical social processes and their correlations with SWB?

A

> Marital status is correlated at .14 with SWB
Scope of social contact (incl size of social network) …r = .16
Quantity of social activity…r = .17
Number of friends…r = .13
Close friends with whom you could share a problem …r = .05 - very small
Various other variables (e.g., how often you see your close friends…r < .05)

12
Q

What is the correlation between money and SWB?

A

“The correlation between happiness and income is somewhere between .17 and .21” (Lucas et al., 2008) - average correlation, similar to the effect of relationships

13
Q

What is diminishing returns?

A

> for income and social connections
diminishing return on happiness, after certain point it tails off and don’t get as much incremental benefit for happiness.
Australian income around $50-60k

14
Q

What is the role of internal influences on SWB?

A

Together, the Big Five explain 24 to 43% of the variance in SWB

15
Q

Which of the Big Five are best predictors of SWB?

A
Extraversion and neuroticism are the strongest known predictors of SWB
>  Extraversion: r = .35 to .57
> Neuroticism: r = -.35 to -.72
> Conscientiousness: r = .27 to .51
> Agreeableness: r = .15 to .36
> Openness: r = .04 to .26
16
Q

What are the two dominant theories about why personality predicts SWB?

A
  1. Instrumental Theories (indirect effect)

2. Trait x Situation Theories (conditional effect)

17
Q

What is instrumental theory of personality? Give example of specific hypothesises?

A

Personality has an instrumental effect where it impacts behaviours and situations which then impact happiness. e.g. Extraversion -> behaviour/situation -> happiness
> Social Activity Hypothesis - Extraverts are happier because they are more likely to participate in social activities (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)

18
Q

How and who tested social activity hypothesis? describe study.

A

Lucas et al. (2008) using experience sampling methods Semester long ESM Study focus on positive affect side of SWB using self-report and informant reports for E and global positive affect (PA) and moment reports and daily diary reports.
Results:
> strong relation between E and PA (r = .3 - .5) (min.3 (strong effect size))
> strong association between E and social activities (r = .29 - .27)
> moderate correlation between % time in social activities and PA (r = .26 -.22)
> E strongly related to PA and moderately related to social activities but social activities do not explain the relationship between E and PA (only helping activity was an indirect effect)
> Both I and E have more positive affect when in social activity cf. alone (but E always more positive affect regardless of whether alone or with friends than I)

19
Q

What are the conclusions regarding instrumental theory of personality and SWB?

A

> Even after accounting for multiple social activities, Extraversion directly predicts positive affect (key component of SWB)
Extraverts are happier than introverts…
– when living with others or living alone
– when working in social/nonsocial jobs, etc
(Diener et al., 1999)

20
Q

what is Trait x Situation Theories (conditional effect) theory of personality and SWB?

A

> There is some situational effect to which E respond more strongly than I —> e.g., Extraversion x situation –> happiness
If extraverts respond more strongly to reward, they may experience more positive affective ‘highs’ - higher highs when something good happens to them
Similarly, neuroticism and reactivity to threat/punishment (Gray, 1987)…

21
Q

What is one study which tested the conditional effect theory of personality and SWB?

A

(Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991)
> Hypo: extraverts are more susceptible to positive affect, neurotics are more susceptible to negative affect
> Design: Mood induction procedure through guided imagery with either positive, neutral or negative situations
> Results: In negative conditions both E & I are similar on PA, however in positive conditions E get more PA than I.
> In positive conditions both N and non-N are same, however in negative condition N get more negative affect than non-N.

22
Q

What is the general conclusion on theories of personality and SWB?

A
  1. Extraversion and neuroticism are the strongest known predictors of happiness/SWB
  2. In general, instrumental processes (e.g., via socialisation) have not explained these effects
  3. Conditional processes have drawn more support - E.g., affective reactivity: Extraversion and neuroticism may dispose people to react positively/negatively
23
Q

What is the link between intelligence (g) and happiness?

A

Judge et al. (2010) two paths:

a. Educational attainment -> work success -> ‘economic wellbeing’ (The correlation between happiness and income is somewhere between .17 and .21” (Lucas et al., 2008))
b. Health-related behaviours -> actual health -> perceived health (perceived health is a stronger predictor of longevity than more objective measures (e.g., Ganz, et al., 1991; Rumsfeld et al., 1999))

24
Q

Describe Judge et at (2010) study

A

Hypo: g associated with SWB through economic well-being and better perceived health
Design: 10 yr longitudinal study with 4 assessments
Results:
> g directly predicts educational attainment, unhealthy behaviour (use of alcohol/tobacco), occupational prestige and economic well-being (e.g., regular saving) (and g also indirectly predicts economic well-being through these things i.e. educational attainment etc)
> Unhealthy behaviour and occupational prestige predicts health, which then influences perceived health
> Economic wellbeing and perceived health influences SWB
> after accounting for childhood SES

25
Q

What is the conclusion between intelligence (g) and SWB?

A
  1. Link between intelligence and happiness suggestive of instrumental processes (indirect effects on SWB):
    a. Via educational/work success
    b. Via health behaviours and actual/perceived health
  2. Further research needed…
26
Q

What is the relationship between health and SWB?

A

> Health is a major antecedent and consequence of SWB…bidirectional relationship
Actual health has a modest impact on SWB but perceived health has a moderate impact (r = .30-.40)
Happiness known to be a robust predictor of health and longevity e.g. positivity of nun’s diaries - top quartile lived 10 years longer on av (Danner et al., 2001)

27
Q

What is the relationship between g and health/longevity?

A
Scottish Mental Survey 1932: (Gottfredson & Deary, 2004) - g at age 11 predicted survival at age 76 with lower scores (-1SD) predicting 29% decreased likelihood of being alive - every SD drop will drop your likelihood of being alive by 30%
> This rate increased as a function of adult social class and deprivation - SES did not explain the relationship
28
Q

Why does intelligence predict longevity?

A

i. The ‘archaeological record’: g as an indicator of ‘biological integrity’?
> g and risk of disease are both associated with reduced fetal development and birth weight
> But effect of g on mortality is independent of this (Leon et al. 2009)
ii. Socioeconomic resources?
> g predicts economic well-being via educational and occupational success (high g predicts economic wellbeing), high SES associated with longevity
> But g consistently predicts later-life morbidity and mortality after controlling for SES.
iii. Risky behaviours and healthy environments? - most supported

29
Q

How is g associated with risky behaviours?

A

Australian Veterans Health Studies: (O’Toole & Stankov, 1992)
Results:
> Controlling for various factors (e.g., education and employment), each additional IQ point predicted (M=100, SD = 15) a 1% decreased in risk of non-combat death at age 40 - alive at age 40
> Major cause of death was car accidents – the rate of which doubled then trebled at successively lower IQ brackets (100-115; 85-100; 80-85)

30
Q

How is g associated with health behaviours?

A

a) Health-enhancing mental resources? Recall study by Judge et al. 2010 - g associated with health related behaviours because they are better at picking things up related to their health
> In SMS1932: higher IQ (1SD) predicted a 33% increase in quitting smoking - people born in 1920s most people smoking but as knowledge of risk increases people quit
b) ‘Health Literacy’ (Williams et al., 1995)
> 26% of patients unable to understand appointment slip
> 42% unable to understand directions for taking medicine
> health literacy cannot be assumed

31
Q

Can intelligence predict health literacy? Define study

A

(Murray, Johnson, Wolf, & Deary, 2011)
Design: Health literacy in a subset (N= 304) of the SMS1932 sample
IVs: ability to Read and pronounce common medical words (incl. body parts and illnesses), Comprehension of sets of medical directions, Understanding of nutritional information labels
Results:
> g assessed at age 11 predicted all health literacy measures at age 70 rs = up to .53!
> Remained a significant predictor after controlling for personality, education, SES, and ‘cognitive change’ (change in g over 69 years)

32
Q

What is the link between C and longevity? Define study

A

Martin et al., 2007
Design:
> Conscientiousness in childhood (1920s) estimated from parent and teacher reports
> Conscientiousness in adulthood assessed at two time points (1940 and 1950)
Results:
> Adult conscientiousness predicted probability of death, b = -.20, p < .001
> After controlling for alcohol use, smoking, BMI, education and metal health, conscientiousness was no longer a significant predictor, b = -.10, ns
> But C associated with smoking r = -.20 [males] and r = -.16 [females]

33
Q

How is C linked with longevity?

A
  1. Conscientiousness & Health / Risky Behaviours: (Bogg & Roberts, 2004)
    > less alcohol use, drug use, unhealthy eating, risky driving, risky sexual behaviours, aggression
  2. Conscientiousness – health promoting behaviours…
    > Odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years:
    - Conscientiousness: +ve predictor
    - Extraversion, openness: -ve predictors
    - Neuroticism: curvilinear predictor!
34
Q

What are the change in C over time and how are they associated with health? Cite studies

A

> (Roberts et al., 2006) C rises quite steadily over the lifespan
(Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson, & Roberts, 2012) - 3 year longitudinal study:
Results:
- C associated with preventative health behaviours overall health at both time points
- Changes in C associated with changes in preventative health behaviours and overall health
- Changes in preventative health behaviours mediated the association between changes in C and changes in overall health i.e. C –> health behavs –> health

35
Q

What are the personality traits associated with disease?

A

> Ag has a preventative role response to stressors:
1) Reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress
2) Increased pain tolerance
Higher N increase susceptibility to depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

36
Q

Can we tailor health promotion to match people’s personalities?

A

‘Personalised persuasion’ Hirsh, Kang, and Bodenhausen (2012):
> Marketing study: different messages to capture motivational concerns associated with personality…e.g. E = emphasis on fun and excitement
> Advertisements were evaluated more positively the more they cohered with participants’ dispositional motives.