1
Q
Personality
Eysenck’s theory of personality
A
Eysenck proposed that some people were more vulnerable to addiction due to their personality. He argued that people seek out addiction as a way of meeting a need that is driven by their personality.
2
Q
Personality
Extraversion/Introversion
A
Extraverts are optimistic, lively and sociable while introverts are more reserved and quiet.
3
Q
Personality
Neuroticism/Stability
A
Individuals high in neuroticism are moody, irritable and anxious whereas those high in stability are more controlled and anxious.
4
Q
Personality
Psychoticism/normality
A
Those high on the psychoticism scale are aggressive, impulsive, impatient and creative.
5
Q
Personality
Linking these traits to addiction
A
- Eysenck (1997) argued that addiction is more prevalent in people who score high in psychoticism and neuroticism.
- Tested using the EPQ (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) – measures P, N, E (extraversion), L (lie/social conformity).
- Gossop & Eysenck (1980): study of 200+ drug addicts → addicts had high P & N scores, but lower E & L scores than controls.
- Suggests certain personality traits increase vulnerability to addiction.
6
Q
Personality
Psychoticism and impulsivity
A
- High psychoticism is linked to impulsivity – acting without thinking about consequences (e.g. believing smoking won’t harm them).
- de Wit (2009): review found impulsiveness is both a cause and an effect of drug abuse.
- Dalley et al. (2007): impulsive rats took more cocaine than low-impulsivity rats.
- Stevens et al. (2014): impulsive individuals were less successful in treatment, more likely to drop out and less likely to maintain abstinence.
- Impulsivity makes both starting and quitting an addiction more difficult.
7
Q
Personality
Neuroticism and self-medication
A
- Neurotic individuals may use addiction as self-medication to cope with stress and worry.
- Sinha (2001): stress plays a key role in both the initiation of addiction and the risk of relapse during abstinence.
- Those more susceptible to stress may feel they need the addictive behaviour to relieve it.
- Low self-esteem is another neurotic trait.
- Baumeister (1997): low self-esteem can lead to self-defeating behaviour, such as addiction, to escape self-awareness and avoid negative feelings.
8
Q
Personality: Evaluation
Difficulty establishing cause and effect
A
- Research on addiction & personality is mainly correlational, so cause and effect is unclear.
- Personality tests are usually given after addiction develops, so addiction itself may cause stress or impulsivity, not the reverse.
- Prospective evidence: Dong et al. (2013): Chinese university students given EPQ on entry; 2 years later, internet addiction assessed.
- Higher Neuroticism (N) & Psychoticism (P) scores predicted later addiction, suggesting personality traits can cause addiction.
9
Q
Personality: Evaluation
Role of personality depends on the addictive behaviour
A
- Personality traits may influence some addictions but not others.
- McNamara et al. (2010): impulsive rats self-administered cocaine but not heroin.
- Rozin & Stoess (1993): no common personality pattern across different addictive behaviours in humans.
- Suggests the link between personality and addiction may depend on the type of addictive behaviour.
10
Q
Personality: Evaluation
The myth of the addictive personality
A
- Many traits (e.g. high N & P) have been linked to addiction, but these are not unique to addicts (also found in criminals, Eysenck).
- Kerr (1996): the idea of an “addictive personality” is a myth – so many traits are listed that most people may display some of them.
- Suggests it is inaccurate to describe addiction as caused by a single, simple set of personality traits.
- The reality is likely much more complex.
11
Q
Cognitive biases
Heuristics and cognitive biases
A
- Kahneman & Tversky (1973): humans use heuristics – mental shortcuts for decision-making and judging probabilities.
- Heuristics help us solve problems quickly by focusing on one aspect at the expense of others.
- While often useful, heuristics can sometimes lead to errors in judgement, called cognitive biases.
12
Q
Cognitive biases
Heuristics and gambling
A
- Representativeness and availability heuristics can influence gambling behaviour.
- Using a heuristic at the wrong time may cause errors in judgement.
- This can lead to continued gambling even when losing, contributing to gambling addiction.
13
Q
Cognitive biases
Heuristics: Representativeness
A
- Representativeness heuristic: belief that small samples reflect larger patterns (e.g. 20 coin tosses should be 50/50 heads and tails).
- Leads to gambler’s fallacy: thinking if an outcome happens more than usual, the opposite is “due.”
- Example: Monte Carlo, 1913 – roulette hit black 26 times; gamblers rushed to bet on red and lost money.
- Problem gamblers may adopt this thinking, believing they are “due a win” or can predict outcomes.
14
Q
Cognitive biases
Heuristics: Availability
A
- Availability heuristic: events seem more likely if they are easier to recall from memory.
- Decisions are influenced by how often we hear about something, not its true probability.
- Example: overestimating causes of death if experienced personally or widely reported.
- In gambling, this can make people overestimate chances of winning.
– Media reports on big lottery wins make wins seem more common.
– Casinos: slot machines placed together so people hear coins, reinforcing the illusion of winning.
15
Q
Cognitive biases: Evaluation
Supporting evidence
A
- Griffiths (1994): compared 30 regular vs 30 non-regular gamblers on fruit machines.
– Regular gamblers made more irrational verbalisations (14% vs 2.5%).
– Their verbalisations showed clear heuristics & biases. - Suggests cognitive biases are central to gambling addiction.
16
Q
Cognitive biases: Evaluation
Description or explanation?
A
- Issue: Cognitive biases may describe gamblers’ thoughts but don’t truly explain gambling behaviour.
- A good explanation should predict behaviour, but cognitive biases are unpredictable.
- The same individual may use different biases at different times, with no clear pattern.
- Example (Griffiths, 2013): first UK National Lottery triple rollover →
– Representativeness bias: “13 is due to appear.”
– Availability bias: “13 is unlikely as it hasn’t appeared much.” - Shows that biases cannot consistently predict gambling behaviour.
17
Q
Cognitive biases: Evaluation
Methodological issues
A
- Research often relies on gamblers reporting their thoughts, which can cause problems.
- Griffiths (1994): researchers must interpret biases, risking researcher bias (expectations influencing results).
- Questionnaires (e.g. Gambling Belief Questionnaire) depend on gamblers being honest.
– Issues: demand characteristics & social desirability.
– Gamblers may hide irrational thoughts if they know they sound illogical. - Therefore, findings may lack validity.
18
Q
Cognitive biases: Evaluation
Everyone exhibits them
A
- Cognitive biases are found in non-gamblers and gamblers who don’t become addicted.
- Raises the question: why do biases lead to addiction in some people but not others?
- Possible answer: problem gamblers may have more biases or use heuristics inappropriately.
- Baboushkin et al. (2001): heuristics are often useful in everyday life, but not with chance events → problem gamblers fail to recognise this.
19
Q
Scizophrenia- Cognitive approach
Explaining hallucinations in schizophrenia
A
2.5–4% of the general population experience hallucinations without psychiatric diagnosis (Claiborn, 2009).
* Anthony Morrison (1998): triggers such as sleep deprivation can cause some to “hear” voices.
* Individuals misinterpret (appraise) these voices as threatening (e.g. from the devil).
* This leads to maladaptive behaviours like withdrawal or self-harm.
* These behaviours cause negative emotions (sadness, shame) → which reinforce the hallucinations, creating a vicious cycle.
20
Q
Scizophrenia- Cognitive approach
Explaining negative symptoms of schizophrenia
A
- Aaron Beck et al. (2008): applied the cognitive triad (from depression) to schizophrenia.
- Individuals hold dysfunctional beliefs about:
– their performance (“I can’t do anything right”),
– their ability to feel pleasure, and
– a bleak view of the future. - Cognitive biases and faulty information processing mean they only notice negative experiences.
- This leads to negative symptoms such as:
– flatness of affect,
– avolition (lack of motivation),
– anhedonia (loss of pleasure).
21
Q
Scizophrenia- Cognitive approach
Lack of preconscious filters
A
- Christopher Frith (1979) proposed that positive symptoms (e.g. hallucinations, delusions) result from faulty preconscious filtering.
- Normally, we receive lots of sensory information — the preconscious filters it so only the most relevant data reach conscious awareness.
- In schizophrenia, these attentional filters malfunction, allowing too much sensory information to enter awareness.
- This causes confusion, misinterpretation, and difficulty selecting appropriate actions.
- Leads to positive symptoms — e.g. perceiving random thoughts or stimuli as significant or external.
22
Q
Scizophrenia- Cognitive approach
Compromised theory of mind
A
- Frith (1992) suggested people with schizophrenia have a compromised theory of mind: difficulty understanding their own and others’ thoughts and intentions.
- He proposed three cognitive system disorders:
- Disorders of willed action → explain negative/disorganised symptoms (e.g. avolition).
- Disorders of self-monitoring → explain delusions of control and auditory hallucinations (can’t recognise thoughts/actions as their own).
- Disorders of monitoring others’ thoughts → explain delusions of persecution (misinterpreting others’ intentions as threatening).
23
Q
Evaluation of cognitive explanations of schizophrenia
Supporting research
A
- Barch et al. (1999) compared Stroop test performance of people with vs. without schizophrenia.
- Those with schizophrenia were slower and made more errors, showing difficulty filtering out irrelevant information.
- Supports Frith’s theory that individuals with schizophrenia have defective attentional filters, leading to disorganised thinking and confusion.
24
Q
Reductionist account
A
- Frith linked faulty cognitive mechanisms in schizophrenia to disconnection between the frontal cortex (decision-making) and posterior regions (perception).
- Found changes in cerebral blood flow during cognitive tasks in people with schizophrenia, supporting his view making this scientific.
- However, critics argue this is reductionist, it oversimplifies schizophrenia by reducing it to brain circuitry and ignoring social, emotional, and environmental factors.
25
Not a comprehensive theory
* Cognitive explanations mainly explain cognitive symptoms (e.g. disordered thinking) but not other symptoms such as movement issues.
* They describe how symptoms occur (proximal causes) but not why they occur (distal/origins of schizophrenia).
* This means they lack completeness and should not be viewed as a standalone explanation for schizophrenia.
26
An integrated model of schizophrenia
* Howes & Murray (2014)
* Proposes that genes or early life factors (e.g. birth complications) interact with life events or social stressors (e.g. poverty).
* These triggers activate the dopamine system, leading to excess dopamine release.
* Dopamine overactivity disrupts cognitive processing, causing delusions and hallucinations.
* Experiencing these symptoms causes further stress, releasing more dopamine which is a vicious cycle.
* Suggests that cognitive factors are important, but must be integrated with biological and social explanations.
27
# Psychodynamic explanation of schizophrenia
Fixation
* Freud proposed schizophrenia results from fixation in the oral stage (first 1–2 months of life).
* During this stage, pleasure comes from oral stimulation (e.g. feeding, sucking).
* If an infant receives too much or too little oral satisfaction, the libido becomes fixated.
* This fixation causes the individual to regress to an infantile state under stress later in life, leading to schizophrenic symptoms.
28
# Psychodynamic explanation of schizophrenia
Regression
* Regression is an ego defence mechanism where the ego retreats to an earlier stage of psychosexual development.
* In schizophrenia, individuals regress to the oral stage when under extreme stress.
* As adults, oral desires are normally met through harmless behaviours (e.g. smoking, chewing gum).
* Under stress, regression to the oral stage may become temporary or long-term, leading to infantile behaviours and symptoms of schizophrenia.
29
# Psychodynamic explanation of schizophrenia
Losing touch with reality
* During the oral stage, the ego is not fully developed, so it cannot control the id’s impulses or balance the superego’s demands.
* When an individual regresses to this stage, the id operates unchecked.
* Hallucinations and delusions represent the uncontrolled activity of the id.
* The person loses touch with reality, confusing fantasies with real experiences.
* This resembles a state of primary narcissism, a self-focused, infant-like condition.
* In contrast, well-adjusted adults have strong egos that regulate fantasy and reality.
30
# Psychodynamic explanation of schizophrenia
The schizophrenogenic mother
* Proposed by Frieda Fromm-Reichmann (1948).
* Suggests that early relationships, especially with the mother, are crucial in schizophrenia’s development.
* The schizophrenogenic mother is:
– Overprotective and controlling, stifling emotional growth.
– Rejecting and distant, depriving the child of security.
* This combination leads to a child who becomes distrustful, resentful, and emotionally vulnerable to stress.
* As an adult, the person may struggle to cope with reality, increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia.
31
# Schizophrenia evaluation
Freudian Concepts Are Out of Date
* Psychodynamic concepts (id, ego, superego) are unscientific and unfalsifiable – cannot be objectively measured or tested.
* Because they don’t produce testable hypotheses, their explanations for schizophrenia lack empirical support.
* Modern psychology views psychodynamic accounts as historically interesting but scientifically weak.
* If the basic constructs can’t be demonstrated, they cannot reliably explain complex disorders like schizophrenia.
* Even Freud acknowledged potential flaws, stating future research may show his theory contains “more delusion… than I should like to admit.”
32
# Schizophrenia evaluation
Failure to Produce an Effective Treatment
* Freud believed people with schizophrenia were unsuitable for psychoanalysis because they often lack the insight needed for talking therapies.
* Later psychodynamic therapists (e.g., Rosen, 1947) attempted to use psychoanalysis for schizophrenia, but evidence shows it is ineffective and potentially harmful.
* Research by Strupp et al. (1977) found psychoanalytic therapy could lead to negative or damaging effects, likely because it forces patients to confront memories and emotions they cannot cope with.
* Since a theory should lead to a useful and effective treatment, the failure of psychoanalytic therapy suggests the psychodynamic explanation lacks validity.
33
# Schizophrenia evaluation
Inconsistent Support for the Schizophrenogenic Mother
* The “schizophrenogenic mother” idea was popular mid-20th century, but its research base is weak.
* Kasanin et al. (1934) reviewed hospital case records and claimed maternal overprotection in 33/45 schizophrenia cases.
* This means almost one-third of cases did not show the pattern → evidence is inconsistent and unconvincing.
* Kasanin was not blind to the hypothesis, so his judgements were likely biased and subjective.
* Overall, the evidence lacks scientific rigour, undermining the validity of the schizophrenogenic mother explanation.
34
# Schizophrenia evaluation
Overlooks the Role of Genetics
* Psychodynamic explanations treat schizophrenia as the result of early experiences (nurture), ignoring biological factors.
* However, strong genetic evidence contradicts this view.
* Adoption studies clearly demonstrate that schizophrenia risk persists even when children are raised away from their biological parents.
35
# Schizophrenia evaluation
Overlooks the Role of Genetics (2)
* Heston (1966) studied:
47 adoptees with a biological mother diagnosed with schizophrenia
50 adoptees without a biological mother with schizophrenia
* Findings:
10.6% of adoptees with a biological schizophrenic mother developed schizophrenia
0% of adoptees without a biological schizophrenic mother developed it
* This suggests genetic inheritance, not problematic parenting, is a more plausible explanation.
* Therefore, psychodynamic theories fail to account for the strong genetic contribution to schizophrenia.
36
# Hardiness
The Hardy Personality
* People with a hardy personality cope better with stress (Kobasa & Maddi)
* Three key traits:
* Control: feel in charge of their lives → personal power; believe actions influence outcomes
* Commitment: sense of purpose; stay involved in life; curious about people/world
* Challenge: see stress as opportunity → learn from failures & successes; accept life isn’t easy
37
# Hardiness
How these characteristics bufffer against stress
* Hardy personality → resilience to stress
* Control, commitment & challenge lead to: More effective coping strategies, Better self-care, Greater use of social support
* Results in a reduced physiological stress response
* Lower blood pressure & lower heart rate
* Less release of stress hormones (e.g. cortisol)
* Therefore lower risk of stress-related illness
38
# Hardiness
Research evidence
* Kobasa (1979): male business executives
* High stress + no illness vs high stress + illness
* Used SRRS + illness survey
* Stress-resistant group showed higher hardiness
* Maddi (1987): Bell Telephone employees during redundancies
* Hardy individuals → fewer stress-related illnesses (heart problems, depression)
* Kobasa et al. (1986): hardiness more protective than exercise or social support
* Bartone (1999): soldiers
* High hardiness → better coping with combat stress
* Lower risk of PTSD and depression
39
# Hardiness evaluation
Gender differences
* Early hardiness research (Kobasa) used male-only samples
* Findings may not generalise to females
* Shepperd (1991): inconsistent gender findings
* Control & commitment predicted health outcomes in males
* Did not predict health outcomes in females
* Suggests different elements of hardiness may be more important depending on gender
40
# Hardiness evaluation
Disagreement of all three elements
* Maddi (2013): all three Cs (control, commitment, challenge) are required
* High control alone (without challenge & commitment) ≈ Type A personality
* Sandvik (2013): study of Norwegian navy cadets during stressful field exercise
* Measured hardiness before exercise; blood samples during & after
* Compared balanced vs unbalanced hardiness (low challenge)
* Unbalanced group showed more damaging immune responses
* Suggests low challenge increases vulnerability to stress
* Implies some elements may be more important than others
41
# Hardiness evaluation
Neuroticism
* Funk & Houston (1987): overlap between hardiness and neuroticism scales
* Example: “not my fault” vs “punished without cause”
* High neuroticism → dwell on failures, focus on negative, exaggerate illnesses
* Low hardiness participants may report more illness due to neuroticism, not actual health differences
* Controlling for neuroticism → relationship between hardiness & illness may disappear
* Funk (1992): more research needed; could be a higher-order trait combining high hardiness + low neuroticism that buffers stress
42
# Hardiness evaluation
Issues with measuring hardiness
* Relies on self-report → social desirability bias
* Multiple scales used → difficult to compare results across studies
* Differences in findings may reflect scale differences, not real effects
* Funk (1992) recommendation: use Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS)
* Measures all 3 Cs equally
* More positively phrased items → high hardiness indicated by agreement
* More widely available → better standardisation
43
# Type A and B personalities
Type A and B personality
* Developed by: Friedman & Rosenman (1950s)
* Observed behaviour in cardiology waiting rooms → some tense & restless, others calm
* Type A: competitive, hostile, impatient, tense, restless
* Type B: calm, relaxed, able to express feelings, less competitive
44
# Type A and B personalities
The link between Type A personality and stress-related illnesses
* Type A individuals → more prone to fight-or-flight responses
* Frequent activation → ↑ adrenaline and other stress hormones
* Physiological effects: ↑ heart rate, ↑ blood pressure → blood vessels wear & tear
* Long-term → ↑ risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke
45
# Type A and B personalities
The Western Collaborative Group Study Procedure
* Rosenman et al. (1976): Western Collaborative Group Study
* Procedure: 3,154 men (39–59) followed prospectively
* Categorised Type A/B via 25-question interview
* Interview designed to provoke Type A responses (pace, volume, interrupting)
* Observed behavioural cues
46
# Type A and B personalities
The Western Collaborative Group Study Findings
* Findings (after 8.5 years):
* 257 developed heart disease, 70% Type A
* 12.8% Type A → heart attack vs 6.0% Type B
* Type A → higher BP & cholesterol
* Controlled for other factors (smoking) → risk linked to personality
47
# Type A and B personalities
Other research
* Framingham Heart Study (Haynes et al., 1982): large-scale longitudinal study on CHD risk factors
* Findings: Type A behaviour → 2× increased risk of coronary heart disease over 10 years
* Supports findings from Western Collaborative Group Study that Type A = higher CHD risk
48
# Type A and B personalities evaluation
Conflicting evidence
* Ragland & Brand (1988b): 22-year follow-up of 257 original Western Collaborative Group participants
* Findings: Smoking & cholesterol = important predictors of CHD mortality
* Type A behaviour did not significantly predict CHD mortality
* Type A individuals more likely to survive heart attacks than Type B
* Possible explanation: original publication → Type A individuals changed their behaviour, reducing stress-related risks
49
# Type A and B personalities evaluation
Gender and culture bias
* Gender bias: original studies = men only; Type A traits (masculinity, competitiveness) may be male-centred
* Baker et al. (1984): women show similar Type A traits and greater autonomic arousal, suggesting health risks may apply
* Culture bias: Developed in USA → values like workaholic, competitive = Western norms
* Helman (1987): concept may not apply to non-Western cultures → limited generalisability
50
# Type A and B personalities evaluation
The role of hostility
* Hecker et al. (1988): re-examined Western Collaborative Group Study cases
* Found hostility = most significant predictor of CHD
* Other Type A traits (competitiveness, impatience) → less impact on CHD risk
* Implication: Type A individuals could focus on reducing hostility to cope better with stress
Psychology Unit 3
flashcards
Decks in class (10)
# Cards
-
Characteristics of the behaviour26
-
Biological Explanations47
-
Individual differences50
-
Social Psychological Explanations42
-
Methods of modifying the behaviour62
-
Controversies: Non-human animals17
-
Controversies: Cultural Bias14
-
Controversies: Sexism1
-
Controversies: Scientific status0
-
Controversies: Ethical costs of conducting research0
