Midterm 3

1
4 21 09

• Midterm 3
• Good job!
• M 83

2
4 21 09

• Ch 13
• 1. Personal relationships SWB (Myers)
• 2. E N SWB (Gross)
• 3. Physiology of emotion (Lang)

3
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• Western society offers mixed messages
• co-dependency, abusive relationships
• Must compromise ones goals
• only the self matters
• Others can interfere with self-growth

4
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• What is the one thing that can make you truly
  happy?
• 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

• What do results say?
• A tour
• Distress (anterior cingulate study)
• Confusion (being stunned Twengy)
• Depression lots of studies

6
Myers Relationships and Quality of Life

• Lacking early attachment
• Consequences
• depressed, anxious, clueless, suicidal,
  withdrawn
• Conclusion
• Leary never met a happy hermit

7
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

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

8
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Married

45
0
9
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Marriage and happiness
• Gender
• Marriage
• Of these,

10
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Of course, some marriages suck
• sucky marriages not happy
• However, most marriages dont suck
• marriage is great and very happy
• spouse is also best friend
• Would marry same person 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,
• Benefit to actual mental health
• Do Americans take advantage of this?
• Parallels other changes

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) decline of marriage
• Wow!
• Other negative trends

15
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

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

16
Myers Relationships Quality of Life

• Temporal trends since 1960
• (3) declining civility social chaos
• (1)
• (2)
• (3)
• Who is incarcerated?
• from

17
Selfishness, Individualism, and Happiness

• Exercise
• 1)
• 4 happy people you know
• 4 unhappy people you know
• 2)
• For each person, selfish or selfless?
• 3) happy individuals
• more selfish or selfless?
• Take vote

18
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Of big 5
• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• 1. Exposure view
• E
• N
• There are some data of this sort
• E pos events,
• N neg events,
• w/ events controlled
• E, N still predict SWB

19
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• 2.
• E, N not event exposure
• So much as reactivity to such events
• Given same pos event
• Given same neg event

20
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Why are E, N linked to SWB?
• 3.
• regardless of pos events
• regardless of neg events

21
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Present study
• E.g., disgust, fearful, amusing clips
• Thus, all ss exposed to same events
• both before and after films

22
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

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

23
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Results
• To negative films, r .25
• To amusement film, r .24
• Thus
• E more
• N more

24
E, N, reactivity (Gross et al., 1998)

• Conclusions
• 1.
• For N, but not for E
• 2.
• For both E N
• reactivity linked to temperament view

25
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• 2
• Consuming (food)
• Sexual behavior
• Approach
• Linked to PA
• Threat
• Disgust
• Avoid
• Linked to NA

26
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• IAPS
• Pictures that vary in
• Used to understand
• Over 600 pictures
• Known valence arousal properties
• Can be precisely timed
• Can induce E many times in a session

27
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Valence arousal of pictures

sex
baby
family
positive
skiing
valence
snake
cemetery
negative
mutilation
arousal
28
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion
R -.90
29
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion
R .6
30
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion
R .8
31
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Higher arousal
• Regardless of whether pos (skiing) or neg (snake)
• However, if phobic (to snakes)
• short viewing time
• get this thing out of here

32
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Sex differences
• valence facial (corrugator, zygomatic) activity
• arousal electrodermal activity

33
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Amygdala
• Mostly from animal models
• From retina to thalamus to amygdala
• Even cats!
• No fear
• But also no clue

34
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• How to assess amyg in humans
• Startle potentiation
• Triggers rapid reflex movements
• Mediated by amygdala
• DV
• Higher if in a neg state

35
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Blink magnitude
• Also role for arousal
• Neg facilitation neg/high arousal (vs.
  cemetery)
• Pos inhibition pos/high arousal (vs. family)

36
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• Generality of startle potentiation
• Larger potentiation if phobic of object (e.g.,
  snakes)
• Can use startle to index extent of phobia
• Missing aversive motivation?

37
Lang (1995) Psychophysiology of Emotion

• What about appetitive neural system?
• We know less
• Basal ganglia, nucleus accumbens
• Also limbic, subcortical structures