Ch 9 Self-psychology Humanistic Existential models

Ch. 9: Self-psychology Humanistic & Existential models • Early theorists • Research on the emerging self • Humans • Non-human species • Contemporary theories • Terror management theory and threats to self • Assessing the self

Theories on the self - William James, 1890 z The self as “I” (the knower) y awareness, current knowledge, subjective z The self as “me” (the known) y Objective sense of self z Defined self-related behavior as self-seeking or self-preserving Three constituent selves defined in descending order of importance y spiritual me (values, attitudes) y social me (all relationships) y material me (all possessions & your body) z Multiple selves compete for a limited resource (you)

Carl Rogers z You are at the center of your phenomenal field (the totality of your immediate experiences from your perspective) z Strive in life to reach our ideal self and congruence between actual and ideal self (self-actualization) y. Cognitive distortions (denial) may be used z Emergence of the true (ideal) self requires unconditional positive regard yunpleasant behavior occurs with conditions of worth z Biased to maintain self-concept (look for congruent info and discount incongruent info) z Autobiographical statement

Maslow & Perls z Maslow’s Need Hierarchy yphysiological, safety, belongingness/love, esteem xall are deficiency needs (d-needs must be continuously met) yself-actualization as transcendence of the self xa sufficiency need (b-needs are like peak experiences) y. Focus on highest functioning individuals (vs. patients) z Gestalt Psychology (Fritz Perls) ythe whole is greater than the sum of its parts (i. e. , one cannot know the self by merely understanding the parts) ytaking responsibility for ones’ actions (wont vs. can’t) and living for the moment

Kierkegaard and May z Soren Kierkegaard y. Each is responsible for creating our own meaning in life x. Expanding self-awareness & taking responsibility = living authentically x. Expanding the self= freedom/responsibility, but this leads to anxiety and dread z Rollo May y. Questioning existence unless one leads a meaningful (authentic) life y. Failure to take responsibility for our lives = powerlessness y. Normal anxiety (proportionate to threat) vs. neurotic anxiety (disproportionate) y. Stages of self-awareness: 1) innocence (infant), 2) rebellion (independent of others), 3) creative awareness

Frankl and Yalom z Victor Frankl y. Deriving meaning in life even from horrific circumstances (concentration camps) y. Finding meaning in the mundane when “bored” y. Logotherapy = injecting life with meaning y. Focusing on others decreases anxiety and increases fulfillment and self-actualization z Irvin Yalom y. Everyone will experience: meaninglessness, isolation, mortality, and freedom y. The key to self (character) development is determined by how we deal with these experiences

The self-concept and your spit z When is your spit no longer your spit? (G. Allport) z Definition: Mucus and other fluids formed in the air passages and upper food passages (the mouth), and expelled by coughing z A permeable boundary that defines what is and is not “ours” has always been central to the self-concept. z A sense of one’s personal identity; also referred to as self-awareness

Self recognition = self identity? When does it develop and how do we know?

Research on self-recognition: Human research z Darwin (1877): self-awareness achieved when child recognizes self in the mirror (physical awareness = selfconcept) z Rouge test - researchers covertly dabbled rouge on babies’ noses before placing them in front of a mirror (Gallup & Suarez, 1986). y 18 -24 month old children will, upon seeing the red spot, touch their noses (self-directed behavior; Vyt, 2001) y. Robust timing even across SES and if children maltreated y. A precursor to the development of the self z Gazing time research suggests self-recognition could occur as early as 3 months of age (Bahrick et al. , 1996)

Research on self-recognition: Non -human species Initially assumed that self-recognition made humans distinct z Self-directed behavior in the mirror (target vs. sham) z For non-humans, there is a learning curve with exposure to mirrors y. Great apes viewing mirror image with object on head y. Dolphins touched with marking and non-marking markers y. Asian elephants y In 2008, researchers documented self-recognition in Magpies; one of the few non-mammalian species to evidence this ability. http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=4 m. D 8 vel. B 83 w

Critiquing the research on selfdirected behavior (rouge test) z Self-recognition does not = presence of a self concept z Does self-recognition mean the same thing in non-humans? z Humans rely heavily on vision, whereas other species do not, so implication for a mirror test that is visual in nature? z Other influencing factors (e. g. , motivation to clean face varies and when given motivation, self-directed behavior increases) z What if self-recognition is present but child is unable to identify behavior to resolve the rouge or to know that it should be removed? z Self-directed behavior may be influenced by self-directed attention (self-awareness)

Putting self theory to the test, part 1 Can self awareness be altered (experimentally manipulated)? z Manipulating self-focused attention using a mirror y Participants completed 30 sentence stems either at a desk either with or without a mirror. y Judges blind to condition rated the stems as self-focused (e. g. , my success, being loved, etc. ) or other-focused (e. g. , giving a party, marrying Tom, etc. ); Inter-rater reliability =. 72 y More self-focused statements in front of the mirror, as the mirror activated a self-focused response y Similar findings when comparing answers of those who tend to be more self-focused to those who tend to be more other-focused. y Greater self-focused attention is associated with more negative mood states and passive coping strategies (Wood et al. , 1990) z How else can we manipulate self-focused attention?

Expanding the self-concept z Beginning with simple self-awareness, the self-concept elaborates to include psychological components. ye. g. , we define ourselves in terms of gender, group membership, traits, etc. z Self-concept relates to our environment (working self) y AA male with females emphasizes being male vs. with Whites emphasizes being AA (see also Canadians in Toronto vs. NY). z Self-concept relates to our actions ye. g. , children with a positive self-concept tend to be more confident, independent, optimistic, & assertive (Maccoby, 1980) y. Self-identity (recognition) allows for empathy to emerge z One self concept vs. Multiple selves (“I wasn’t myself. ”) y Multiple selves to deal with unfavorable self-discrepancies

Possible Selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) z Possible selves – possible versions of you; limitless; activated by cues in the environment, developmental factors, social norms yvalence - positive (hoped for) or negative (feared) ytemporal - past, present, or future z The absence of possible selves limits behavior that results in those selves (e. g. , health possible self for minorities; academic possible self for juvenile delinquents, etc. ) z Their presence motivates action towards achieving those possible selves

Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) z Self-guides are internal standards used for comparison purposes y e. g. , ideal self – the you that you want to be which can be contrasted with the actual self (the you that you are) y Three self domains to compare: 1) actual, 2) ideal (how you’d like to be), 3) ought (How you think you should be) y Also noted that the comparison can occur from your perspective (own) or from the perspective I think others have of me (other) z Actual - Ideal self discrepancies from your own perspective determine self-esteem and depression/well-being y. Writing about your favorite celebrity with whom you’ve assimilated increased self-esteem (Gabriel et al. , 2008)

Putting self theory to the test, part 2 Can experimentally-induced self-discrepancies lead to depression? (associations have not been shown to be causal) - Higgins et al. , 1986 z College students imagine either a favorable or unfavorable outcomes (e. g. , good or bad grade) then complete survey on who they actually are, who they’d ideally like to be, and who they ought to be. Half the subjects were the protagonist in the imagined scenario and half thought of someone else y Thinking about a negative event had greater actual-ideal discrepancies and they scored worse on mood measures y Thinking about negative events and more actual-ideal discrepancies also led to behavioral slowing (seen in depression) y The effects did not work as well for positive events Significant critique: Imagined scenarios are not as real.

Research on public-private self (Triandis, 1987) Differences between Private & Public self? y greater discrepancies seen in individualistic cultures (similar in collectivistic cultures) What are some reasons why you would not smoke? (private vs. public) z Responses differed for collectivistic vs. individualistic cultures y My health, money, etc. vs. bad example for children & 2 nd hand smoke z Scenario involving a friend who is hospitalized 60 miles from your home. y Do you visit him/her? (private vs. public) y Would you enjoy doing this or would you simply feel obligated to do this? (private vs. public) z Survey of professional athletes y Prefer league MVP (individualistic) vs. league championship (collectivistic) y Observations of “team” play at the international level z Note: Limitations of survey research

Eastern View of the Self z Self as Tao or “no mind” z All that which cannot be known (unconscious? ) ye. g. , “I am ____. ” Create list. Remove these things, and you are that which is left. By definition, you are what you cannot conceive. z West: Define the self by summing all the known constituent parts vs. East: defining the self by eliminating all of the constituent parts z You cannot know yourself because of your unique perspective. yparadox - This sentence contains an error. y. Both knower and known (see also W. James)

Threats to the self: Terror management theory z Existential theory posits that as part of self-awareness, we are aware of our own mortality and must find meaning in life to avoid overwhelming anxiety/dread z TMT: conflict: awareness of mortality + strong desire to live y Uniquely human level of awareness and conflict y The creation of society and contributing to our worldview gives meaning and stability to our lives, which reduces the sense of existential threat y When our sense of mortality is made salient to us, we act aggressively towards others, especially those perceived as outgroup members (those with different worldviews and/or those who threaten our worldview); the effect is greater than that seen with a pain condition y e. g. , Research: Random assignment to MS (write about your death vs. control condition of threat to political view). Those with MS were more likely to put more hot source when MS activated (Mc. Gregor et al 1998)

Self-esteem buffers self threats & MS activation z Self-esteem comes from living up to the standards established by our worldview, so this lowers the sense of threat y e. g. , successfully investing in children, culture, etc. assures us that we will outlive our lifetime. y Self-esteem is consistently associated with anxiety (inverse relationship) The death threat response when MS is consciously activated: y Initially, we experience thought suppression y This results in these thoughts being even more accessible in the unconscious y Thus, effects are largest with subtle death threat activation and effects may be absent with blatant activation of MS y Effect varies as a function of individual differences (e. g. , attachment style)

Putting self theory to the test, part 3 Are we all susceptible to MS effect, and can these existential threats be induced subtly? - Rosenblatt et al. , 1989 z 22 municipal judges randomly assigned to MS or control cond z Judges exposed to MS had nine-fold higher bonds, even though no differences on self reported mood. z So greater punitiveness even for those who are supposed to be impartial z Subtle inductions include completing the survey near a funeral home, seeing warnings on cigarette packages, or seeing a motor vehicle accident y Perhaps thoughts of death are always available, but we are less aware of them at times?

Assessments z Many examples of assessments of the self and related constructs; e. g. , y Q-sort y Possible selves y The Selves questionnaire y Idiographic and nonidiographic self-concept questionnaire y The Person orientation dimension (measures of self-actualization) y Measures Personal growth y Self-focused Sentence completion blank y Autobiographical statement

Ch. 10: Criteria to define disorders z Deviance - from societal norms (abnormal is not da disorder) y. If too deviant (rare) then not identified as a disorder. y. If too common, then it is no longer non-normative. z Dysfunction - relationships and work z Distress - affective discomfort (experienced by the individual or created in others) z Danger - to self (e. g. , suicidal) or others Criteria that are specific to personality disorders: z Pervasive - impacting all aspects of life z Longstanding - at least early adulthood z Note: Each of the above are neither necessary nor sufficient

Putting PDs to the test, part 1 Can PDs be subsumed by the same constructs that assess normal personality functioning? Does DSM-5 = extreme Big 5? y 920 community residents and 680 students and for both samples, participants completed the full NEO and a measure to assess PDs y NEO items overlap substantially with the items from the inventories assessing PDs. 4 common factors emerged: x. Emotional instability (neuroticism) x. Antagonism (low agreeableness) x. Introversion x. Constraint (conscientiousness) x. Openness to new experience did not emerge as a common factor x. The NEO provides more differentiation for those scoring at the lower end of these factors; whereas the PD measures provide more info for those scoring at the higher end (Walton et al. , 2008) y So 4 of the Big 5 do seem to capture both normal and PD functioning y Schizotypal PD = high N, E, A & O (Widiger et al. , 2002)

Diagnostic information Diagnostic criteria defined by the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) z Enduring pattern of inner experience or behavior that deviates from the individual’s culture in at least 2 of the following 4 areas: y cognition: perception of self, others & events y affect: range, intensity, and appropriateness y interpersonal functioning (occupational) y impulse control z PDs should be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood (i. e. , PDs should not be diagnosed in children). e. g. , Childhood diagnosis / Adult diagnosis y e. g. , conduct disorder >>>> Antisocial PD y e. g. , identity disorder >>>> Borderline PD

Diagnostic information - 2 z PDs have a known incidence of 9% in the U. S. population (Lenzenweger et al. , 2007) y. Similar, though more variable rates worldwide (6 -13%; Crawford et al. , 2012). y. Use of ICD-11 in other countries (DSM-5 in U. S. ) z 60% chance of having a personality disorder if one is diagnosed with a clinical condition (e. g. , depression, anxiety, etc. ). ye. g. , 23 -44% of psychiatric patients have PDs z Those diagnosed with one personality disorder are 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with a second PD Why all this overlap (referred to as comorbidity)?

Myth of mental illness? (Szasz) z Criteria used to define “mental illness” change as a function of shifts in cultural values and normative experiences over time y e. g. , earlier version of the DSM considered homosexuality as a disorder, now consider PMS as a disorder, y Other examples of changing criteria: MPD, Pseudocyesis, etc. z Mental illness = Disease (medical) model or is it a myth? y “Myth of Mental Illness” (1968) z Can patterns of behavior, affect, or cognition be an illness? y e. g. , conservativism? y e. g. , suicide? (“Cruel Compassion”)

Personality disorders: Cluster A z All three involve odd or eccentric behavior y. Paranoid PD – hostile & threatening interpretation of the actions and intentions of others, suspiciousness, quick to anger y. Schizoid PD – flat affect with no desire for interactions, and limited interests, few pleasures, isolative, indifferent & detached y. Schizotypal PD – some paranoia, unusual perceptions, odd behaviors/beliefs, inappropriate affect, isolative, ideas of reference, social anxiety y More commonly diagnosed in males, typically single, with jobs resulting in minimal interpersonal contact. y All cluster A PDs generally result in isolation of the individual, but for different reasons (see also Avoidant PD) z Video

Analysis of “Bob” z Unusual behaviors in the interview? z Examples y Has a hard time expressing thoughts in a linear fashion (e. g. , Ask about him, he talks about the planets) y Doesn’t interact with others - odor is “pervasive and malicious” y Best friend is college roommate (hasn’t seen him since college) y “They know what I’m thinking and I know what they’re thinking? ” (thought broadcasting/mind reading? ) y Implied that friend’s death was caused by throwing away his picture? y Visual hallucination? (the spots on the wall capturing his attention) y “Uncle has hallucination because uncle drinks, but I don’t drink” y Personality? (“Constancy is a virtue”) y Paranoia re: the library? z Schizotypal Personality disorder. y Theories to explain it? …

Example theories to account for paranoid PD z Biological – recall the twin data suggesting the strong genetic link between those with schizophrenia and those sharing a genetic history (according to the ICD-10, cluster A personality disorders are just milder forms of schizophrenia) z Cognitive – reasoning errors associated with paranoia (e. g. , paranoid individuals require less information to come to a decision compared to non-paranoid individuals: Garety et al. , 1991 study on colored balls) z Psychodynamic – paranoia is an unconscious defense against the “homosexual impulse” (reaction formation and projection: I love a man I hate him - He hates me. i. e. , paranoia. ) z Behavioral – a failure to receive positive reinforcers for pro-social behavior, so one resorts to bizarre behaviors to get attention. Also paranoid explanations may be more appealing than reality.

Personality disorders: Cluster B z All involve dramatic/emotional presentations z Borderline PD – instability of affect and relationships, parasuicidal behavior (suicidal gestures with high visibility but low lethality), frantic attempts to avoid abandonment, intense & inappropriate emotions, affective extremes are common z Narcissistic PD – seeks attention, lacks empathy, vulnerable to criticism, grandiose self view, requires admiration, exploitive z Histrionic PD – seeks attention, sexualizes all interactions, use of physical appearance for attention, rapidly shifting shallow emotions, theatrical, shallow speech, focus on physical symptoms z Antisocial PD – deceitful, criminality, impulsive and reckless, little remorse, irritable and aggressive, irresponsible z Cluster B PDs are typically involved in relationships, but they are problematic. Diagnosed more in females (except antisocial)

Analysis of Candy Johnson z Unusual behaviors in the interview or inconsistencies? z Examples y Is there a “Billy from Philly” y Hasn’t eaten in days, yet she has plenty of food y “Respects” doctors, but puts feet up on the chair y Very worried about Billy, yet hasn’t spoken with him in days y Says she has no criminal record, yet she does y No rationale for what she will do with the money ($50 for medical services will buy what? ) y Left Billy with several nurses even though he was not sick at the time y Always changing topics and appears evasive (Billy, police, phone call, headache, hunger, etc. ) y Manipulating the doctor (controlling the interview) z Signs of remorse? Drama? (I’ll crawl there on my hands and knees if I have to!”) Lying? Brought in by police. z Antisocial Personality Disorder

ASPD: Two theoretical perspectives z “Sociopath” - refers to the hypothesized social factors that underlie this disorder y. Early problems with learning right/wrong (behavioral) y“Mani sans deliria” - Mania without delirium y. Moral insanity - illustrated by lack of remorse z “Psychopath” - refers to the presumed physiological causal factors yresearch (Lykken, 1957, 1995) on ASPD’s attenuated response to positive punishers relative to non-ASPDs y. Response to negative punishers and rewards is similar to that of non-ASPDs (Schmauk, 1970)

Personality disorders: Cluster C z All Cluster Cs involve fear and anxiety z Avoidant PD – fear of criticism from others, social phobia may occur, isolative, views self as inept, unlikely to be in a relationship z Obsessive-compulsive PD – perfectionistic, unwilling to delegate, inability to meet deadlines, preoccupied with details, rigid, hordes money z Dependent PD – unable to act alone on any decision, needs others, subservient and may place themselves in humiliating circumstances, difficulty expressing disagreement, fear of abandonment, always in a relationship

Non-classified PD z. PD NOS – not meeting the criteria for any one PD, but they have features of several; can refer to more than one PD y. Still a disorder due to the presence of the 4 Ds

Analysis of Julian Robbins z Unusual behaviors in the interview? z Examples y Defines all people in terms of their illnesses y Appears to be experiencing physical discomfort (“cramps”) y Dramatic and emotional about helping others y Theatrical presentation z Histrionic personality disorder z This is atypical as it is more commonly observed in females (note the effeminate quality of the male client)

Putting PDs to the test, part 2 Why sex differences in prevalence rates for different PDs? y e. g. , ASPD > men; Borderline and Histrionic > females y > 43, 000 person sample over time with high retention rates (87%) y Diagnoses using the DSM-IV y Differences in diagnoses were stable over time y Sex differences in the antecedents (childhood adverse events like abuse and neglect, parental history for psychiatric problems) and consequences (adult adverse events like physical and sexual assaults) for the PDs y 1, 226 men and women met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD x. Women 18 times more likely to experience sexual assault vs. men x. Women more likely to have a mood disorder & have parent with psychiatric illness, or living with someone with alcohol problem x. As children, females more likely to experience physical, sexual abuse and emotional neglect x. Men more likely to abuse substances

Assessment of PDs z MMPI: developed in 1940 using an empirical approach, revised in 1989 (MMPI-2) and has 567 T/F items y Most widely used personality inventory in clinical settings y items generally lack face validity y validity scales (lie, defensiveness, infrequency) y Assesses m/f, Si, D, Hs, Pa, etc. (psychopathology= personality) x See p. 315 for all primary clinical scales y T/F answer format requires many items z PAI: (2007) 344 -item inventory; validity & 11 clinical scales y 2 clusters of PDs: borderline and antisocial z MCMI-III: 1994 instrument with 175 -items matched to DSM y Validity scales + clinical syndromes + 14 PDs divided by severity (e. g. , borderline, schizotypal & paranoid as most severe) z Note: Rorschach and TAT and 2 nd and 3 rd most commonly administered measures in inpatient psychiatric settings

Putting PDs to the test, part 3 Are some measures of PDs and other mental illness better at addressing malingering or defensiveness? z Malingering - faking bad for some external gain z Defensiveness – faking good z Validity scales can provide information on item response tendencies z Study examining individuals who are instructed to fake bad found the MMPI-2 F scales to be the best predictors and the MMPI-2 was better than the PAI (Bagby et al. , 2002) z Study examining the feigning of PTSD also showed the MMPI-2 to be better at detecting feigning than the PAI (Lange et al. , 2010) z Study looking at 200 actual psychiatric patients showed the MMPI-2 to be more sensitive than the MCMI-III to over-reporting (Morgan et al. , 2002) z Thus, the MMPI-2 appears the best instrument to assess validity concerns

Comparison of Personality Assessments You completed: z TAT (& Rorschach)- subjective scoring, socially desirable response set less obvious, assumes unconscious processes z Rep Grid – perceptions, social networks, socially desirable response is less obvious z NEO - objective scoring, representative norms, straight forward assessment Other measures: z Autobiographical statement – most open-ended (broad) and most consistent with the subjective experience, but hardest to score and compare z PPA - straight forward, normative & ipsative scoring, samples everyday behavior. (see normative scoring) z How would different PDs do on each test?