Proposal Topic

1
3 27 08

• Proposal Topic
• Title, 2 paragraphs, H (see Proposal notes,
  posted online)
• Due April 3, in class or email (Michael.D.Robinson
  _at_ndsu.edu)
• If you have such info today, fine to turn in

2
3 27 08

• Ch 13 Emotion and Personality, part 2
• 1. Personal relationships and happiness (Myers,
  1999)
• 2. The Big 5 traits and SWB (McCrae Costa,
  1991)
• 3. Some class results
• 4. A closer focus on E, N emotion (Gross et
  al., 1998)

3
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• Bad
• co-dependency, abusive relationships
• Marriage metaphor
• only the self matters
• Others can typically only interfere with
  self-growth and actualization

4
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• Close relationships beneficial?
• Western society offers mixed messages
• Pick one of following (Pettijohn Pettijohn,
  1996)
• (a) winning millions in lottery
• (b) achieving fame and prestige in career
• (c) enjoying physical pleasure (food, sex, drink)
• (d) falling or staying in love with your ideal
  mate

5
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• Emotional benefits of belonging, being attached
• Social exclusion, ostracism lead to

6
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• studies of non-attached infants (e.g., in
  Romania) correlational
• studies of non-attached monkeys (Harlows
  research) experimental
• Consequences
• They are depressed, anxious, clueless, suicidal,
  excessively withdrawn

7
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Social ties reduce death and illness
• (1) large increase in physical disease
  (e.g., 2 x likelihood of immediate death)
• (2) . Much more likely to survive 20 years if
  they believe they have strong social support
• (3) . Those who live alone 2x likelihood of
  second heart attack
• (4)

8
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Marriage and happiness

45
0
9
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Marriage and happiness
• Age
• Gender
• Income
• Marriage

10
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Marriage and happiness
• 2/3 of married individuals report that their
  marriage is great and very happy
• 3/4 of married individuals say that their spouse
  is also their best friend
• 4/5 of married individuals say that they would
  marry the same partner again

11
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Marriage and happiness
• Does marriage bring happiness?
• Or
• Do happy people marry more often?
• Most data suggest

12
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Thus, marriage important to both emotional and
  physical health
• However, do we as Americans take advantage of the
  benefits of marriage?

13
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Temporal trends since 1960s
• (1)
• Today mean age of marriage 26.7
• 1960 mean age of marriage 22.8
• Divorced individuals today 17.6 million
• 1960 2.9 million
• The scale of marital breakdowns in the West
  since 1960 has no historical precedent that I
  know of, and seems unique
• Stone (1989), family historian at Princeton

14
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Temporal trends since 1960
• (1)
• We are marrying less often
• Such data are reinforced by other negative trends
  in society

15
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Temporal trends since 1960
• (2)
• This means less face-to-face interaction
• Boy Scouts
• Red Cross
• Womens clubs
• Fraternity lodges

16
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Temporal trends since 1960
• (3)
• (1) higher teen suicide
• (2) higher rapes
• (3) higher juvenile violent crime
• Who is incarcerated?
• more children from
  single-parent families

17
Selfishness, Individualism, and Happiness

• Demonstration
• 1)
• 4 happy people you know
• 4 unhappy people you know
• 2)
• For each person, decide if selfish or selfless
• 3) determine whether there is a relation between
  happiness and selfishness
• 4) happy individuals more selfish or selfless?
• Take vote

18
Selfishness, Altruism, Happiness

• Paradox

19
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Which of Big 5 are linked to SWB (subjective
  well-being)?

20
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• E N (Costa McCrae, 1980)

21
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Not due to (positive or negative) life events
• Potentially due to inborn dispositions
• Stable over time
• Fairly sizable genetic basis

22
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• That is, given same events
• A, C do not matter
• A are nice, sociable
• May lead to more social pleasure, support
• C are hard-working
• May lead to more success in work

23
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• More open to experience
• More positive affect
• But more negative affect too

24
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Subjects
• 258 participants
• Aged 24 to 81 (interested in age)
• measures
• 1979 SWB measure
• 1984 Big 5 measure
• Personality post-dicting SWB

25
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Correlations
• E N O A C
• PA .32 -.09 .14 .15 .13
• NA -.06 .40 .13 -.12 -.17
• LS .19 -.29 .01 .16 .25

26
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• E N temperamental traits
• E likely through PA
• N likely through NA

27
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Both in positive direction
• May experience more intense emotions, regardless
  of their valence
• Tendency to experience more NA may counteract
  tendency to experience more PA

28
Big 5 and well-being (McCrae Costa, 1991)

• Related to more PA
• Related to less NA
• Thus related to LS
• Why?

29
Field Independence Perception

• E, no
• A, no
• C, no
• N, yes, r -.47, p
• O, no
• Question why high N more field dependent?

30
Word Fragments Perception

• Before midterm word fragment test
• Positive completions likely
• THRI _ _ THRILL THRIFT
• Negative completions likely
• GLO _ _ Y GLOOMY GLOSSY
• Calculated of positive negative completions
  for each individual

31
Word Fragments Perception

• Rusting Larsen (1998)
• E correlates
• N correlates
• Will report back on whether this is true later
• Our class
• Also a problem that pos neg completions
  correlated
• Why so?

32
Personality Feedback

• Data from our class
• 1st column field independence
• 2nd column pos completions/15
• 3rd column neg completions/15
• Handout

33
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• E more
• N more
• There are data of this sort
• but not sufficient to explain E N relations w/
  SWB

34
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• E, N not linked to pos events, neg events
• So much as
• Given same positive event
• Given same negative event

35
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• E always more PA,
• N always more NA,

36
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Present study
• E.g., disgust, fearful, amusing clips
• Thus, all ss exposed to same events

37
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Results
• N NA, r .30
• N PA, r .07
• E PA, r .15
• E NA, r .09

38
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Results
• To negative films, r .25
• To amusement film, r .24
• Thus
• Same positive event creates more PA among those
  high in E
• Same negative events create more NA among those
  high in N

39
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Conclusions
• 1.
• Neurotics more negative affect regardless of
  circumstances
• 2.
• Thus, same (positive) events induce more PA among
  those high in E
• Thus, same (negative) events induce more NA among
  those high in N