Upload
sylvia-horn
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 1
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 1
NYT. Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings , 10/21/09
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 2
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 2
Impulsivity v. Self-control
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 3
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 3
Impulse v. self-control: some core constructs
Self-control capacity “Trait” self-control
Mischel data on kids’ restraint adult functioning Self-control individual differences interpersonal functioning. Gailliot; Dispositional Self-Regulatory Ability.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 4
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 4
Impulse v. self-control: core constructs, 2
Self-control capacity “Trait” self-control
Mischel data on kids’ restraint adult functioning
Self-control individual differences interpersonal functioning.
Gailliot; Dispositional Self-Regulatory Ability.
“Dyscontrol” models of pathology: substance abuse, OCD
Stable individual differences in “need for control”
“State” self-control
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 5
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 5
Impulse v. self-control processes
Impulse Specific > generalized: global motivation + concrete
stimulus
Strong, primitive incentive value
Sugar glop on food
Sexy girls on Buicks
Health Behavior web site
Automatic response (see: automaticity characteristics)
Not dependent upon limited capacity control mechanism
Short-term incentive with rapidly decaying incentive value
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 6
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 6
Single goal with both approach & avoidance gradients.
Approach motives (positive conceptualizations) more salient to distant & abstract goals. Avoidance (concern over negative consequences) is more salient to more proximal & concrete goals.
Single goal with both approach & avoidance gradients.
Approach motives (positive conceptualizations) more salient to distant & abstract goals. Avoidance (concern over negative consequences) is more salient to more proximal & concrete goals.
Approach – Avoidance Conflict
Near Far
Distance from goal
Dri
ve
str
eng
th
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 7
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 7
Single stimulus that elicits both impulsive approach & self-controlled
avoidance gradients.Avoidance motives (self-controlled responses) driven by distant & abstract goals. Approach motives (impulsive Rx) more salient to proximal & concrete goals.
Single stimulus that elicits both impulsive approach & self-controlled
avoidance gradients.Avoidance motives (self-controlled responses) driven by distant & abstract goals. Approach motives (impulsive Rx) more salient to proximal & concrete goals.
“Impulse” v. Self-control
Near Far
Distance from goal
Dri
ve
str
eng
th
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 8
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 8
Reflective – Impulsive Model (RIM) Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
2004;8(3):220-247.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 9
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 9
RIS: principles
Thesis I: Basic assumption. Social behavior is the effect of the operation of two distinct systems of information processing: a reflective system and an impulsive system. The systems can be specified by different principles of representation and information processing.
Thesis 2: Parallel operation. Both systems operate in parallel. However, there is an asymmetry such that the impulsive system is always engaged in processing (by itself or parallel to operations of the reflective system) whereas the reflective system may be disengaged.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 10
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 10
RIS, 3
Thesis 3: Capacity. The reflective system requires a high amount of cognitive capacity. Therefore, distraction as well as extremely high or low levels of arousal will interfere with its operation. In contrast, the impulsive system requires little cognitive capacity and may control behavior under suboptimal conditions. As a Consequence, processes of the reflective system are disturbed more easily than those of the impulsive system.
Basic “self-control as a muscle” perspective
Hoffman: array of variables that disrupt self-control
Arousal
Prior control activity
Alcohol / drug use
Negative affect
Working memory capacity
Trait self-control
Approach / avoidance orientation
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 11
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 11
RIS, 4
Thesis 4; Relations between elements. Elements in the two systems are connected by different types of relations. In the reflective system, elements are connected through semantic relations to which a truth value is assigned. In the impulsive system, the relations are associative links between elements and are formed according to the principles of contiguity and similarity.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 12
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 12
RIS, 5
Thesis 5; Execution of behavior. There exists a formal common pathway to overt behavior in the impulsive system that may be activated by input from the reflective and the impulsive system. This pathway consists of behavioral schemata of varying abstractness. If the schema is activated above a certain threshold, the behavior will be executed.
Thesis 6: Precursors of behavior. The systems use different operations to elicit behavior. In the reflective system, behavior is the consequence of a decision that is guided by the assessment of a future state in terms of its value and the probability of attaining it through this behavior. In the impulsive system, a behavior is elicited through the spread of activation to behavioral schemata.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 13
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 13
RIS, 6
Thesis 7: Intending. In the reflective system, a behavioral decision is linked to behavioral schemata by the process of intending. Intending monitors the impulsive system for information that enables the behavioral implementation of the decision. The mechanism of intending is terminated if the behavior is executed or if the goal of the preceding behavioral decision is already fulfilled.
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 14
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 14
RIS, 7Thesis 8: Motivational orientation: The impulsive system can be
oriented toward approach and avoidance. This motivational orientation may be elicited by
the processing of positive or negative information,
the perception of approach or avoidance,
the experience of positive or negative affect,
the execution of approach or avoidance behaviors.
Stable individual differences (BIS / BAS) {?}
Thesis 9: Compatibility. The processing of information, the experience of affect, and the execution of behavior are facilitated if they are compatible with the prevailing motivational orientation.
Approach orientation (BAS activated?) facilitates…
Avoidance orientation (BIS?)
• Processing positive information• Positive affect• Approach behavior• Gain orientation
• Processing negative information• Negative affect• Avoidant behavior• Loss orientation
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 15
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 15
RIM overview
“Automatic” cognitive activation
Cognitive control over
impulses
Approach – avoidance orientation
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 16
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 16
Hofmann perspective
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 17
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 17
Trait models
Big 5: (Non)agreeableness & conscientiousness, neuroticism
Same factors as morbidity / mortality predictors generally
Others: Big 3: psychoticism, neuroticism
Sensation seeking, “Type T” personality
BIS / BAS
Reward v. punishment sensitivity
Time scale: immediate v. delayed
Mischel, Miller et al.: “Hot” v. “cold” systems
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 18
Ps
yc
ho
log
y 4
15
; S
oc
ial
Ba
sis
of
He
alt
h B
eh
av
ior
Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 18
Traits, 2
Rothbart et al.: PFC effortful control