Adaptive significance of low levels of self-deception and cooperation in depression

1. Adaptive significance of low levels of self-deception and cooperation in depression Michele K. Surbey Shelby Johanson and Cindy Ung

2. Introduction • Humans are self-aware and have theory of mind • This also means we are more aware of our flaws and the unpleasant aspects of our world • Self-awareness and processes like self-deception and repression have been subject to natural selection 

3. What is Self-Deception? • Gur and Sackeim (1979) – when two contradictory beliefs are held at different levels of consciousness. • Mele (1997) – Avoidance of unpleasant information, or unintentionally and unconsciously viewing things in an unrealistically positive way • Trivers (1976, 1985) – Active misrepresentation of reality to conscious mind, or biased information flow within an individual • Kurzban and Aktipis (2007) – Self-deception is an outcome of preferentially choosing overly positive representations or biased perceptions of reality instead of more realistic depictions • SCI – Social Cognitive Interface – System that stores representations relevant to social interactions

4. What is Self-Deception? • Surbey’s definition: Preferential accessing of overly positive or idealized representations or perceptions of the self, others, and the world

5. Why Do We Have Self-Deception? • Taylor and Brown (1988) – Keeps threatening thoughts out of consciousness and facilitates continued performance, motivation, and optimism in adverse conditions • Trivers (1985) - Arms race between ability to deceive and detecting deception • Surbey – may have evolved other evolutionary functions

6. Self Deception and Depression • Abramson and Martin (1981) and Sackeim (1983) - People who are depressed lack the normal capacity to self-deceive • This lack of capacity to self-deceive in depressed people is compatible with many evolutionary theories of depression • Surbey mentions five areas of evolutionary theories for depression

7. Theories of Depression: Loss of Resources • Bowlby (1969) – Depression is a reaction to a loss of a significant relationship • Klinger (1975), Nesse (2000) - Adaptive means to conserve resources/energy in uncontrollable adverse stimuli • Welling (2003) - Provide time-out so their cognitive maps, etc. can be updated

8. Theories of Depression:Dominance Hierarchies • Price (1967) – Depression is a mechanism used by losers of social competitions • Gilbert (2006) – Depression is for reducing further challenges to dominant individuals

9. Theories of Depression:Social Exclusion • Allen and Badcock (2003) – Depression serves to reduce social exclusion • Reduces the risks of social exclusion in individuals that perceive that they have low social status or who are already experiencing social rejection

10. Theories of Depresion: Group Living • Hagen (2002,2003) – Depression is a means of bargaining and advertises an individual’s neediness

11. Theories of Depression: Maintaining Social Relationships • Intrusive and repetitive thoughts about problems in social relationships are typical of depression • Watson and Andrews (2002) and Andrews and Thomson (2009) – Ruminations signify an increased focus on problem solving • Depression is a way of attending, regulating, maintaining, and resolving social relationships with others who might not have the same fitness interests as you

12. Self-Deception and Cooperation • Self-deception facilitates initiation and maintenance of reciprocal altruism • People more likely to exhibit cooperative behaviors if they can’t access their own and others’ selfish motives and assume a norm of reciprocity • Surbey and McNally (1997) – Higher self-deception associated with greater cooperation in Prisoner’s Dilemma game

13. Prisoner’s Dilemma Game • Good model for reciprocal altruism and cooperation • Two individuals choose to cooperate or defect • Payoffs depend on choice made by competitor • One trial versus multiple trials • How can a cooperative relationship be initiated if, on any first or single trial, it is always better to defect?

14. Answer: Self-Deception • Why? Because you would have to access positively biased representations of yourself and of other people • High levels of SD predicted cooperation on PD

15. Goals • Retest relationship between depression and SD using two measures of SD • Test relationship between SD and conscious feelings associated with symptoms of depression • Replicate previous findings of association between SD and cooperation and examine the role of attributional styles and dispositional optimism • Examine relationship between depression and cooperation in social dilemmas based on PD game.

16. Previous Studies • Induced negative mood or depression related with reduced cooperation in other types of games • Results: depressed individuals in power position more likely to defect on cooperating partner than ‘normal’ individuals • Problems: didn’t allow assessment of individuals with depression to cooperate or defect in mixed-motive social dilemmas

17. Methods Participants • 80 Undergraduates (23 male, 53 female). • Queensland Australia • 17-47 years old (M=22.01) • European descent • Middle class • Course credit awarded

18. Methods Measures • Self Deception Questionnaire • Paulhus Deception Scales • Attributional Style Questioning • Beck Depression Inventory II • Life Orientation Test • Prisoner’s dilemma game vignettes

19. Methods Measures – Self deception • Self Deception Questionnaire (SDQ) • 20 psychologically threatening, but generally true statements. • Denial indicates self deception – taps tendency to deny unflattering or negative information • Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) • 40 questions measuring socially desirable responses • SDE: Subconscious attempt to look more agreeable • Secondary measure of self deception • IM: Conscious tendency to manage reputation • Control for impression management

20. Methods Measures - Mood • Beck Depression Inventory II • 21 questions indicating severity of depression. • Attributional Style Questioning • Causal interpretation of 12 situations. • Locus of control, stability, globility, and personal control. • 7 styles • The important ones are OP (Optimism), SN (Stable Negative), and the three negative in general (CONEG: associated with learned helplessness) • Used composite of 3 negative scores as depression measure. • Life Orientation Test • Measure of optimism and pessimism

21. Methods Measures - Cooperation • Prisoner’s dilemma game vignettes • 4 hypothetical situations • Relevant to undergrads. • Match payoffs in classic game of prisoner’s dilemma. • T>R>P>S • “How would you respond in this situation?”

23. Results – Intercorrelations and Preliminary Analyses • Demographic variables were not significantly related with psychological measures • Older participants had lower LPESS • SES positively correlated with SE

24. Results – Relationships Among Measures of SD, IM, and Depressive Symptoms • Participants with high levels of depressive symptomology had reduced levels of SD • SDQ and SDE modestly but significantly and positively intercorrelated • Higher PDS scores correlated with lower depression scores • Higher scores on IM associated with reduced levels of depression

25. Results – SD, IM, Attributional Styles, Dispositional optimism and Pessimism, and Depression • High levels of negative attributional styles and low levels of positive biased cognitive styles associated with increased depressive symptomology • Depressed individual didn’t show reduced overall internal locus of control or personal control • Several attributional styles and dispositional optimism significantly related to depression • Two measures of SD correlated with some but not all attributional styles and with LOPT

26. Results – Unique Identifiers of Depression • Reduced levels of each measure of SD along with SN independently predict greater depressive symptomology • After accounting for these three measures, the remaining attributional styles did not contribute to the model

27. Results – SD, IM, and Cooperating in PD Games • No significant correlations between measures of SD and intention to cooperate • Higher self deceivers more likely to intend to cooperate than low self deceivers

28. Results – Attributional Styles, Dispositional Optimism and Cooperation • Low SN and LPESS and high OP and IM related with higher intentions to cooperate • Attributional optimism only significant predictor – accounts for 19% of variation Results – Unique Identifiers of Cooperation

29. Results – Depressive Symptomology and Cooperation • Scores on BDI-II ranged from 0-38 out of a possible 63. • Average score: 11.64±8.30 • ‘Minimal’ depression = 13 • ‘Severe’ depression = 29 • Tendency to cooperate: 4.86±0.77 • Participants with more severe symptoms of depression showed reduced cooperation

30. Discussion Related Findings • Reduced levels of self deception in depression. • High self deceivers. . . • Feel less pain. • Are less likely to see things that don’t “fit.” • Card test • Individuals with depressive symptoms are. . . • more capable of detecting cheaters (more skeptical). • more logical when confronted with anomalies, negative situations, and violations of social rules.

31. Discussion Notes on the measures • SDQ and SDE • Overlapping tests, yet only moderately correlated and predicted BDI independently. • Self enhancement (in SDE) vs. denial (SDQ). • Conscious management of image (IM) correlated with SDE and SDQ, but did not predict BDI. • Attributional styles • Correlation between • SDQ/SDE and attributional styles. • Negative styles and depressive symptoms. • Stable Negative style and self deception explain 37% of variance in BDI-II scores.

32. Discussion Attributional styles - interpretations • Lack of self deception seems to underlie the negative thinking of depressed individuals. • Stable Negative (bad things are caused by things that won’t go away) also important. • These factors may make individuals more vulnerable to depression. • Self deception may be eroded by life events. Adaptive in that denial only works for so long.

33. Discussion Cooperation • High self deceivers were more likely to cooperate in a game of prisoner’s dilemma. • Only with SDQ, not SDE • Possibly related to different aspects that they measure. • Denial of possible negative responses by other person? • When the stats got fancy. . . • Neither SDQ not IM predicted cooperation! • The best predictors were • Optimism/belief that they had some control of the situation. • IM was close to significant. • Possibly related to “the illusion of control.”

34. Discussion Return to Hypothesis • Hypothesis • “. . .moderate tendency to self deceive is functional, promoting both mental health and reasonable levels of cooperation.” • Support • “The finding that mild depressive symptomology was related to both low levels of self-deception and cooperation supports this view.”

35. Discussion Interpretations • Depression is maladaptive and results from low self deception (Nettle, 2004) • Depression is adaptive - maintains social relations • Bargaining tool (Hagen, 1999, 2002, 2003) • Results show that depressed people do withhold cooperation, supporting this view. • Depression and defection are related: methods of dealing with adverse situations by withdrawing cooperation.

36. Discussion Predictions • People will be more forgiving of defection if the defector is depressed. • Non depressed, high power individuals were more forgiving than depressed, high power individuals when playing with a depressed partner (Hokanson et al., 1980). • Repeated exposure to negative events may reduce self deception and increase depression and defection.

37. Discussion Clinical Implications • Therapies adjusting thought to fit reality may not be effective. • Instead, not thinking about negative thoughts, even if they match reality, may be a better strategy. • Even so, if social problems are not resolved, the treatment will not have lasting effectiveness.

38. Future Studies • Cooperation of a normal individual in a game of prisoner’s dilemma if the defecting player is seen as depressed. • An experimental study, to tease out the causations they are hinting at. • Play with actual people? • Test hypothesis in realistic situation

39. Critiques • Undergraduate subject pool. • Methods consisted of a huge stack of tests. • Their conclusions and ponderings do not always appropriately follow their findings. • Depression includes lack of activity. Does cooperation fall into this?