Plan for Today

1. Plan for Today • Clicker review of material from last time • (opportunity to test ResponseWare for mobile phones) • Lecture (Caspi et al. Ann Rev Psychol 2005) • Defining T&P • Continuity and change • Take-home critical thinking questions • I’ll review the procedures for submitting, grading, etc.

2. Review of Material From Last Time • Questions provide examples of the kinds of items that will be featured on exams • Questions highlight the key conceptual and methodological points from last time

3. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walt Mischel argued that the primary determinant of moods, thoughts, and behavior is • The situation, because T&P at most predict outcomes r = .30 (9% variance) • T&P • Both

4. But contemporary science suggests that moods, thoughts, and behavior are determined by • The situation • T&P • Both

5. Trait-like individual differences in T&P are strongly predictive of… • Academic performance (above & beyond IQ) • Marital stability & satisfaction • Mental & physical health and wellbeing (morbidity) • Death (mortality) • All of the above

6. Correlation and variance “explained:” If two variables are correlated R = .50, the amount of variance accounted for is: • 0.50 * 0.50 = .25 = 25% • 0.50 / 0.50 = 1 = 100% • Sqrt(.50) = .7071 = 70%

7. Longitudinal research studies… • Provide strong evidence that antecedants (childhood) predict consequences (adulthood), a precondition for establishing causation • Complex, costly, and time-consuming • Can not prove causation, because they do not manipulate the putative cause of the outcome • All of the above

8. Moffitt et al PNAS: What is C/SC? • Do things by the book; follow rules • Prefer order and neatness • Planful; not impulsive • Able to delay gratification; self-disciplined (marshmallow test) • Focused; not easily distracted • All of the above

9. Which features of modern culture tend to magnify the impact of individual differences in T&P, such as C/SC? • Longevity • Risk exposure (fast food nation) • The relatively high prevalance of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse • All of the above

10. Moffitt et al PNAS: Key results: Childhood C/SC predicted mid-life • Composite measure of health • Composite measure of personal wealth • Incarceration, criminal conviction and other indices of public safety • All of the above

11. Moffitt et al PNAS: Key results: Which is true? • Kids with low C/SC are prone to smoke, become parents, and drop out of school as teens • Teen snares explain the negative adult outcomes experienced by many kids with low C/SC • Teen snares are only part of the story. Might make more sense to target the root cause (low childhood C/SC) for intevention, rather than teen symptoms • All of the above

12. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

13. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

14. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

15. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

16. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

17. Today’s Conceptual Roadmap • Are T&P fundamentally different? • How are T&P organized? How many factors? • How are emotion and cognition incorporated into these factors? Are some factors more ‘infused’ with cognition than others? • Are some traits, such as N/NE, categorically “bad?” • Are individual differences in T&P fixed and immutable vs. plastic and malleable? Should we be optimistic about the possibility of positive change and growth?

18. PSYC 210:FundamentalDimensions of T&P AJ Shackman 04 February 2014

19. Are temperament and personality categorically different?

20. Historical and Intuitive (Folk Psychological) Perspective:Temperament and Personality are Different in Kind Temperament: Enduring differences that reflect the nature of the person • “the way you act” • “more animal, more reflexive or automatic” • “true self” • “born with, one’s nature, innate” • Early appearing, biological, genetic Personality: Enduring differences that reflect the nurture of the person • “tendency to feel or express particular emotions” • “mix of attitudes and emotion, cognition, and behavior” • “developed or acquired”   • “regulation or management of (emotional) expression in the service of goals” • Later appearing, reflective of experience and the environment, more complex and sophisticated

21. Historical and Intuitive (Folk Psychological) Perspective:Temperament and Personality are Different in Kind Temperament: Enduring differences that reflect the nature of the person • “the way you act” • “more animal, more reflexive or automatic” • “true self” • “born with, one’s nature, innate” • Early appearing, biological, genetic Personality: Enduring differences that reflect the nurture of the person • “tendency to feel or express particular emotions” • “mix of attitudes and emotion, cognition, and behavior” • “developed or acquired”   • “regulation or management of (emotional) expression in the service of goals” • Later appearing, reflective of experience and the environment, more complex and sophisticated

22. Contemporary Scientific Perspective:Temperament and personality are fundamentally… • Different • Similar

23. Contemporary Scientific Perspective:Temperament and Personality are Fundamentally Similar By definition, temperament traits appear earlier in life. Given the brain’s level of maturity at birth, temperament trait are necessarily less sophisticated or complex ; cortical circuits involved in planning and regulation do not come on-line til later But, both temperament and personality traits are • Instantiated in the activity of the brain • Identifiable in non-human animals • Show similar levels of genetic influence • Can be influenced by experience • “Differences in the experience and expression of positive and negative emotions are at the heart of some of the most important temperament and personality traits…Temperament and personality traits increasingly appear to be more alike than different.” – Caspi ‘05

24. Contemporary Scientific Perspective:Temperament and Personality are Fundamentally Similar By definition, temperament traits appear earlier in life. Given the brain’s level of maturity at birth, temperament trait are necessarily less sophisticated or complex ; cortical circuits involved in planning and regulation do not come on-line til later But, both temperament and personality traits are • Instantiated in the activity of the brain • Identifiable in non-human animals • Show similar levels of genetic influence • Can be influenced by experience • “Differences in the experience and expression of positive and negative emotions are at the heart of some of the most important temperament and personality traits…Temperament and personality traits increasingly appear to be more alike than different.” – Caspi ‘05

25. Contemporary Scientific Perspective:Temperament and Personality are Fundamentally Similar By definition, temperament traits appear earlier in life. Given the brain’s level of maturity at birth, temperament trait are necessarily less sophisticated or complex ; cortical circuits involved in planning and regulation do not come on-line til later But, both temperament and personality traits are • Instantiated in the activity of the brain • Identifiable in non-human animals • Show similar levels of genetic influence • Can be influenced by experience • “Differences in the experience and expression of positive and negative emotions are at the heart of some of the most important temperament and personality traits…Temperament and personality traits increasingly appear to be more alike than different.” – Caspi ‘05

26. How are T&P structured? How many dimensions?

27. Trait psychologists have always been contentious about how best to slice up personality, and disagreements have abounded over whether one way or another is fundamental. —CS Carver & MF ScheierTiCS 2014

28. T&P Can Be Conceptualized as a Hierarchy of Traits Narrow ‘facet’ traits Broad ‘umbrella’ traits Zentner et al. 2012; cf. Caspi et al 2005

29. 3 Broad Super-Factors Zentner et al. 2012; cf. Caspi et al 2005

30. Neuroticism / Negative Emotionality (N/NE) • N/NE • Emotion: susceptibility to negative moods • Appraisal: experience the world as distressing or threatening • Motivation: aversive / defensive; tendency to work hard to avoid punishment • N/NE is primarily conceptualized in terms of emotional reactivity and motivation, making it the easiest to translate to nonhuman models, such as monkeys, rats, and mice Caspi et al. ARP 2005

31. Extraversion / Positive Emotionality (E/PE) Low E/PE ‘Introvert’ High E/PE ‘Extravert’ • Extraverts (High E/PE) • outgoing, expressive, energetic, & content to lead (dominant) • Introverts (Low E/PE) • quiet, inhibited, lethargic, & content to follow • not to be confused with Neuroticism/Negative Emotionality (N/NE) Caspi et al. ARP 2005

32. Extraversion / Positive Emotionality (E/PE) • Core features of E/PE are less clear, but seem to include • Emotion: susceptibility to positive moods • Appraisal: see the world as a series of opportunities for reward • Motivation: appetitive motivation; tendency to work hard to approach rewards and incentives, especially social rewards and social attention Caspi et al. ARP 2005

33. Extraversion / Positive Emotionality (E/PE) • Core features of E/PE are less clear, but seem to include • Emotion: susceptibility to positive moods • Appraisal: see the world as a series of opportunities for reward • Motivation: appetitive motivation; tendency to work hard to approach rewards and incentives, especially social rewards and social attention • The emphasis on social dominance (leadership) and enjoyment of social attention differs from the comparatively pure emphasis on emotion/motivation that we saw with N/NE • That is, the superfactors are not mirrors of one another Caspi et al. ARP 2005

34. Self-Control/Constraint (SC/C) • SC/C • High SC/C: responsible, attentive, careful, persistent, orderly, and planful • Low SC/C: irresponsible, unreliable, careless, and distractible Caspi et al. ARP 2005

35. Self-Control/Constraint (SC/C) • SC/C differs from the other superfactors in key ways • Emphasis on cognition (e.g., selective attention) • Reduced emphasis on emotional reactivity and motivation • Increased emphasis on complex, uniquely human qualities (e.g., responsibilty) • Reflects the origins of many self-report measures of personality • Personnel selection for military occupations (WW I and II) • SC/C is complex • combination of complex, late-maturing cognitive capacities and emotion/motivation (e.g., sensitivity to negative feedback) • Again, the 3 super-factors are not totally parallel constructs Caspi et al. ARP 2005

36. Hierarchy of Broad  Narrow Traits Zentner et al. 2012; cf. Caspi et al 2005

37. N/NE • 2 more specific (lower-order) traits • Anxious Distress [Basic Emotion = Fear] • inner-focused (feeling bad) • anxiety, sadness, insecurity, & guilt • motivation = withdrawal • this specific trait is more closely related to Big 5 Neuroticism • Irritable Distress[Basic Emotion = Anger] • Outward-focused (feeling angry or thwarted) • Motivation = approach • hostility, anger, jealousy, frustration, and irritation • Akin to distinction between internalizing (anx/depression) vs. externalizing (antisocial behavior) disorders • There is robust evidence that anxious and irritable distress have distinct • neural substrates, suggesting that not all ‘negative’ emotions can be lumped together Caspi et al. ARP 2005

38. N/NE • 2 more specific (lower-order) traits • Anxious Distress [Basic Emotion = Fear] • inner-focused (feeling bad) • anxiety, sadness, insecurity, & guilt • motivation = withdrawal • this specific trait is more closely related to Big 5 Neuroticism • Irritable Distress[Basic Emotion = Anger] • outward-focused (feeling angry or thwarted) • motivation = approach • hostility, anger, jealousy, frustration, and irritation Caspi et al. ARP 2005

39. N/NE • 2 more specific (lower-order) traits • Anxious Distress [Basic Emotion = Fear] • inner-focused (feeling bad) • anxiety, sadness, insecurity, & guilt • motivation = withdrawal • this specific trait is more closely related to Big 5 Neuroticism • Irritable Distress[Basic Emotion = Anger] • outward-focused (feeling angry or thwarted) • motivation = approach • hostility, anger, jealousy, frustration, and irritation • Akin to the distinction in psychiatry between internalizing (anx/depression) vs. externalizing (antisocial behavior) disorders • There is robust evidence that anxious and irritable distress have distinct • neural substrates, suggesting that not all ‘negative’ emotions can be lumped together (Eddie Harmon-Jones) Caspi et al. ARP 2005

40. E/PE • Four specific (lower-order) traits • Low Social Inhibition/Shyness • reluctance to act and feelings of discomfort in social encounters • multidimensional trait combining low approach, high NE, and high behavioral avoidance • High Sociability • preference to be with others & seek close relationships • may tap approach/PE • High Dominance • assertive and confident, to exert control over others, and to capture and enjoy others’ attention • High Energy/Activity • Key Take Home: Even narrow traits are messy! Caspi et al. ARP 2005

41. E/PE • Four specific (lower-order) traits • Low Social Inhibition/Shyness • reluctance to act and feelings of discomfort in social encounters • multidimensional trait combining low approach, high NE, and high behavioral avoidance • High Sociability • preference to be with others & seek close relationships • may tap approach/PE • High Dominance • assertive and confident, to exert control over others, and to capture and enjoy others’ attention • High Energy/Activity • Key Take Home: Even narrow traits are messy! Caspi et al. ARP 2005

42. C/SC • Six lower-order traits • Low Impulsivity • High Selective Attention • 3. High Achievement Motivation • High Orderliness • High Responsibility • High Conventionality Caspi et al. ARP 2005

43. C/SC • Six lower-order traits • Low Impulsivity • planful, cautious, and controlled vs. incautious, careless/carefree, and impulsive • High Selective Attention • Selective attention: more immune to distractions, focused • Cognitive control: regulation of attention and behavior when prepotent and habitual responses are not sufficient to achieve goals (cf. Shackman et al Nature Rev Neuro 2011) • 3. Achievement Motivation • strive for high standards and pursue goals over time in a persistent, determined manner • 4. Orderliness • neat, clean, & organized vs. sloppy and disorderly • maps closely onto Big Five Conscientiousness Caspi et al. ARP 2005

44. C/SC • 5. Responsibility • dependable vs. undependable • 6. Conventionality • uphold traditions & norms • strongest predictors of avoiding risky behaviors (substance abuse) Caspi et al. ARP 2005

45. T&P = Emotion + Cognition Effortful control involves both cognitive and emotional traits, underscoring the idea that T&P is not just mood or emotion regulation Zentner et al. 2012

46. Traits Interact to Predict Outcome Traits do not act in isolation, but interact to predict important outcomes, e.g., Depression = High N/NE + Low E/PE (double whammy effect: intense distress to threat and negative outcomes AND reduced sensitivity to rewards and positive experiences that might lift mood) Zentner et al. 2012

47. Are particular traits good or evil?Or are they adaptive to the extent that they are a good fit with the environment (e.g, occupation, level of danger in one’s neighborhood)

48. Are particular traits good or evil?Or are they adaptive to the extent that they are a good fit with the environment (e.g, occupation, level of danger in one’s neighborhood)

49. Most traits are a double-edged sword

50. Most traits are a double-edged sword “Parents should appreciate that each of these [traits] has advantages and disadvantages A technological economy requires a college education. Students with higher grade point averages in high school are more likely to be accepted at better colleges and therefore have a higher probability of attaining a gratifying, economically productive career. High-reactive children [kids who are reticent, inhibited, and distressed by strangers and novelty] raised in middle-class homes are more concerned with academic failure and therefore more likely to have an academic record that will gain them admission to an excellent college. Adolescents who were high-reactive infants often choose locations that allow them to work in environments where they can control the level of uncertainty. Such work allows some control over each day’s settings and events, keeping unanticipated interactions with strangers to a minimum. In addition, high-reactives tend to avoid risk and are therefore less likely to drive at high speeds, experiment with drugs, engage in sex at an early age, or cheat on examinations.”