Social Psych & Health Mod1all-1

8/6/2019 Social Psych & Health Mod1all-1

1/44

Health Psychology: Module 1Health Psychology: Module 1


2/44

Physical

HealthObservable,

physical symptoms

Mental

Health

psychologicalfactors

Probably best example of intersection:

stress


3/44

Alternative views on alternativeAlternative views on alternative

medicinemedicine Lance Armstrong

What does alternative mean,

exactly? Several issues here

Experimental evidence weightedvs. not

Western vs. non-western medicine

Focused vs. holisticapproaches


4/44

Regardless of whether the treatment is

traditional or alternative, avoid anecdotalevidence!

Many ailments get better on their own Introduces STRONG confound of time

i.e. the build-up of any drug in your system, andthe passage of time, are always perfectlyconfounded

Try to resist temptation for self-blame if

treatments dont work


5/44

stressstress


6/44

Possible to rank stressfulPossible to rank stressful

events?events?

Holmes & Rahe (1967)

Death of a spouse100

Divorce73

Marriage50

Getting fired47

Change in residence20

Christmas12


7/44

problemsproblems Third variable

problems

Sample

Whats key is how

event is perceived.Personality

trait

Health

problemsp(events

)


8/44

Great study by Cohen et al. (1991)Great study by Cohen et al. (1991)

Psychological stress index

50%

25%

Percent who caught cold


9/44

some causal evidence

Cacioppo 1998

Pre-measure stress post-measure


10/44

Perceived control and healthPerceived control and health A

gain, power of correlational vs. experimentaldesigns

Some causal evidence

Langer and Rodin (1977; p. 513)

Nursing home studyRandom assignment to high personal (and

lasting) control vs. no treatment (baseline).

15 months later:

mortality (death) rate in high control condition: 15% Mortality rate in baseline condition: 30%


11/44

A very disturbing follow up studyA very disturbing follow up study

Schulz and Hanusa(1978; p. 483-484)

Somewhat similar toLanger and Rodin(1977): Random assignment to

high control, vs.baseline But: when

study was over, senseof control was removed;

i.e. temporary control

Death rate

among

baseline (never

had control

increased):0%

Mortality rate

among

temporary

control:

20%


12/44

Risk perception andRisk perception and

moodmood


13/44

Johnson & Tversky (1983):Johnson & Tversky (1983):(specific) cognitive vs. (general) affective routes(specific) cognitive vs. (general) affective routes

Read about case

of cancer

cancer

lightning

earthquakes

Cognitive/priming hypothesis

Not supported


14/44

Read about case

of cancer

cancer

lightning

earthquakes

Generalized affect hypothesis supported


15/44

Study 2Study 2

Unrelated

mood manipulation

Positive mood

Negative mood

Decreased risk

increased risk


16/44

Gender differences in coping with stressGender differences in coping with stress

Fight or flight (Cannon, 1932)

Norepinephrine, epinephrine

Little-known fact about experimental workmost

done on males (e.g., male rats)Taylor et al., 2000

Females

Tend and befriend

More likely to produce oxytocin (calming,

promotes affiliation)

Caution


17/44

Optimism, health and accuracy

Optimism, health and accuracy

Optimism

Unrealistic optimism

The above average effect (Weinstein, 1980)

Health and accuracy

Trade offs


18/44

Positive vs. negative

Key variable: Detection vs. prevention

Detection (e.g. for cancer): negativeframing works better

Prevention (e.g. putting on suncreen:

positive framing

Message framingMessage framing


19/44

Applied focus:Applied focus:how can we motivate people to engage in healthy behavior?

e.g., BSE greatly increases early detection

of cancer, yet relatively few women do so

Message framing

Let X = healthy behavior

Positive framing (gain):

If you do X, good outcome

Negative framing (loss):

If you dont do X, bad outcome

Detection behavior


20/44

(Myerowitz & Chaiken, 1987)(Myerowitz & Chaiken, 1987)

Positive (gain) framing By doing BSE now, you can learn what your body normallyfeels like so that you will be better prepared to noticed any

small, abnormal changes that might occur as you get older.

Research shows that women who do BSE have an

increased chance of finding a tumorin the early, more

treatable stage of the disease.

Negative (loss) framing By not doing BSE now, you will not learn what your body

normally feels like so that you will be ill prepared to noticed

any small, abnormal changes that might occur as you getolder. Research shows that women who do not do BSE have

an decreased chance of finding a tumorin the early, more

treatable stage of the disease.

Detection behavior


21/44

designdesign Framing manipulation:

Gain

Loss Control (no message)

Immediate follow-up

4 MONTHS later: follow upquestionnaire on behavior

Detection behavior


22/44

CONTROL

Intention to perform BSE

Actual BSE behavior GAIN (PF)

Intention to perform BSE

Actual BSE behavior

LOSS (NF) Intention to perform BSE

Actual BSE behavior

Immediate

5.95

6.83

5.18

4 months later

3.95

5.48

3.47

.74

1.42

.75

Detection behavior


23/44

Replications and extensions for

Replications and extensions fordetection behaviorsdetection behaviors

Negative framing superior to positive

framing: Encouraging self-exams for skin cancer (Block

& Keller, 1995)

HIV testing (Kalichman & Coley)


24/44

preventionprevention behaviorsbehaviors Prevention focuses on averting the onset of

a health problem

Provide people with the opportunity to maintain

their present healthy status and to reduce risk of

future illness

Here, positively-framed messages are moreeffective


25/44

ExamplesExamples Encouraging use of sun screen (Rothman et

al. 1993)

Positive frame: using sunscreen, you greatly

reduce the chance of getting cancer later on in

life

Negative frame: by not using sunscreen, yougreatly increase the chance of getting cancer

later on in life

prevention behavior


26/44

Other examples

Other examples

Exercise (Robberson and Rogers, 1988)

Use of infant car seats (Christopherson &

Gyulay, 1981)

Using condoms (Linville et al. 1993)

prevention behavior


27/44

Probability assessment, risk, andProbability assessment, risk, and

healthhealth Again, judgments are biased by what comes

to mind first

Flying vs. driving

Lotteries

Wildly inflated perceived risk of vivid

accidents (e.g. getting struck by lightning) AIDS


28/44

Risk that woman will

contract AIDS with

one heterosexual

contact with HIV

positive male, no

condom

Statistics (as of 1988)Participants

estimates

.2% (1/500)50%

w/condom .02% (1/5000)5%

BUT: Why important to wear a condom:Calculation of objective risk is an inexact science (and these data are somewhat

dated)

Helps prevent: unwanted pregnancy, spread of other STDs (e.g. herpes; 20-30%U.S. population, no cure at current time)

8% ofAIDS cases in the United States have been attributed to heterosexualcontact.


29/44

Illusions and well being:Illusions and well being:A second look at mental health and realityA second look at mental health and reality

Main sources:

Taylor and Brown, 1988

Rebuttal by Colvin and Block (1994)


30/44

Overview

Overview

Definition of mental healththe standard

view

Illusions and biases among healthy

normal individuals

Taylor and Brown thesis; evidence

Rebuttal by Colvin and Block


31/44

Previous assumptions aboutPrevious assumptions about

reality and mental healthreality and mental health Psychological health Close contact with reality

Reasonably accurate

The perception of reality is called mentally healthywhen what the individual sees corresponds to what is

actually there (Jahoda, 1958)

Seems reasonable, but


32/44

Biases in social perceptionBiases in social perception Most of the time, people do notsee the

world as it really is.

These often take the form of self-serving,flattering portraits of the self

two main classes of findings

U

nrealistically positive views of the self positivity distortions

Exaggerated perceptions of personal control


33/44

I. positivity distortionsI. positivity distortions

For most people, positivepersonality information isefficiently processed

RTs

Memory

success vs. failure

Attribution

Recall

Estimated commonality ofstrengths and weaknesses

Weaknesses/faultsseen asrelatively common

Strengthsseen as rare anddistinctive

Above-average effect inratings, predictions The future looks bright, especially

for me! (Weinstein, 1980)

Comparisons of self-ratings vs.observer ratings

Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin,and Barton (1980) College students interact with

others in get-acquainted setting

Researchers compared ratings ofself, vs. ratings by observers

Relative to observers, people sawthemselves in flattering terms


34/44

WhoWho doesntdoesnt show these positiveshow these positive

distortions?distortions?

Moderately depressed individuals, peoplewith low self esteem

Such people show More accurate recall of positive vs. negative

information

More even handed in attributions of self-

responsibility

More congruence between self evaluations andappraisals by others


35/44

II. Illusions of controlII. Illusions of control

Most people infer greater control than theyreally have

When outcome is objectively random,

people still persist in believing that theyhave personal control

And, once again, this effect disappearsamong those who are mildly-to-severelydepressed individuals


36/44

Summary and major implicationsSummary and major implications


37/44

Rebuttal:Rebuttal:

Colvin and Block (1994)Colvin and Block (1994)


38/44

Critique #1Critique #1

Taylor and Brown define healthy vs.

unhealthy (mentally ill) in a very

circumscribed way

Healthycollege students with moderate to

strong self esteem

Unhealthy -Mildly depressed college students


39/44

Depressed individuals, especially those with

moderate to severe levels, may be distorting

in the opposite (negative) direction Thus, it may be a simplification to say that

healthy people distort, but unhealthy people

dont distort

Critique #2


40/44

extremely negative extremely positive

SELF CONCEPT

Theoretical neutral

(unbiased) point

Positivebiases

Negativebiases


41/44

Critique #3: Questions aboutCritique #3: Questions about

operationalization ofoperationalization of accuracyaccuracy

Recall that Taylor and Brown claimed that non-

depressed individuals show positivity biases,

whereas show even handedness in self-relatedprocessing

But even handedness in self processing (e.g.

using just as many negative as positive traits to

describe the self) is not a very good indicator of

accuracy


42/44

Critique #4: Major problems withCritique #4: Major problems with

Lewinsohn et al. (1980) studyLewinsohn et al. (1980) study

In this paradigm, observers tend to be

relatively harsh (negative) when judging

others.

Leads to an artifactual appearance of

accuracy for people if they happen to be

negative in their own appraisals


43/44

critique #5: excessive positivity/highcritique #5: excessive positivity/high

optimism may not always be healthyoptimism may not always be healthy

Narcissism

Disappointment McGraw, Mellers, & Ritov (2004)

Very high self esteem can be associated

with excessive aggressiveness, especially

with males


44/44

SummarySummary Taylor and Brown (1988)

Attempts to propose new viewof mental health and mentalillness

Positive illusions/biases notnecessarily maladaptive

Colvin and Block (1994)

At least Five majorcritiques

Narrow Definition ofhealthy vs. unhealthy

Problems with distortionhypothesis

Definition of accuracysuspect

Problems with Lewinsohnet al. (1980) paradigm

Downside of excessivelyhigh self esteem

Social Psych & Health Mod1all-1

Documents

Transcript of Social Psych & Health Mod1all-1