What Kinds of People Are These? Why are they doing what they are doing?

1. Explain These People! What Kinds of People Are These? Why are they doing what they are doing?

2. The Adventures of Arnie: An Attribution Mystery Arnie and Abigail are at Coney Island on a date. Arnie sees and old lady trip and fall; he rushes to help her. WHY? Is this behavior about Arnie or about Arnie's social situation? Your best guess. Abigail tells Arnie that he is too much a boy scout and ditches him. Arnie sees a 650 lb. man unable to rise from his beach chair; no one is around, yet Arnie helps him. WHY How would you know if this was "Arnie specific" or situational? Your best guess If action was "all about Arnie" what is it about Arnie that explains his behavior? What information you would need to make a better judgment?

3. Attribution Theory Harold Kelley 1921-2003 Lee Ross Edward Jones 1927-1993 Fritz Heider 1886-1988 Richard Nisbett How do we understand our own, and other people's, actions? Humans are "naive psychologists" -- meaning what? Seek reasons, explanations for events--esp. social events. Events are meaningful, lawful--have causes. Two broad reasons for why people do thing: Its because _______ and/or______. Internal reasons (personality, traits, abilities, motives, etc.) External reasons (situations: physical situation, social situation)

4. Correspondence Theory (Jones) "Trait" and "Situational" explanations correspond to certain conditions: 1) Degree of choice 2) Expectedness 3) Outcomes 1. Did Arnie have a choice re. heavy man? ____ Y ____ N 2. Was Arnie's behavior socially expected? ____ Y ____ N 3. Is Arnie the primary beneficiary of his behavior? ____ Y ____ N 1 and 2 Which item(s) relate to internal/external dimension? Which item(s) relate to NATURE of Arnie's personality, motives, etc.? 3

5. Covariation Theory (Kelley) People are naive statisticians. They look for correlations, or rather "covariations" between Behavior (X) and likely reasons (Y). Example: Noise level in Hoboken (X) covaries with days of the week (Y) My irritation with noise (X) covaries with outside noise level (Y) Other people's irritation (X) covaries with their neuroticism (Y) 1) Consensus: How others would respond to this event 2) Distinctiveness: How this particular person responds to different kinds of events 3) Consistency: How this person responds to similar events, but in different sits. 1. Did Arnie behave as most people would? ____ Y ____ N 2. Does Arnie like to help, or does he just like to impress dates? ____ Help ____ Exert 3. Does Arnie help in different ways, in diff. contexts? ____ Y ____ N X X X X X Which items would tell us if Arnie was "pushed" by social conventions (most anyone would do this) or by Arnie-specific attributes?

6. Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross) aka "Correspondence Bias" (Jones) What do you think people focus on most in assigning causes to others behavior, their character (internal causes) or the situation (external causes)? X _____ Character (internal causes) _____Situation (external causes) Tendency to over-weigh internal/character/trait reasons is "Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)" Why do people commit the FAE? Behavior is more salient Behavior is more visible. Curious Case of the Dog In the Nighttime

7. FAE Is Profoundly Stubborn Pro-Castro remarks (Jone & Harris, 1967): Believe responders' attitudes reflect true beliefs, even when clear they are following situation demand. College Bowl Study (Ross): 1. Ss assigned one of three roles: Asker, Answerer, Observer 2. Asker--poses question from own knowledge base, Answerer attempts to answer 3. All parties know these are the rules--all know the SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS 4. DV: All parties rate how GENERALLY KNOWLEGABLE is Asker, is Answerer. Who is rated higher by Observer? Who is rated higher by Answerer? Who is rated higher by Asker? ___Answerer ___ No Diff. ___Asker X ___Asker ___Answerer ___ No Diff. X X ___ No Diff. ___Asker ___Answerer

8. Egocentric Attributional Biases: False Concensus People tend to see own choices as normal and normative (i.e., as how others would act). "EAT AT JOE'S" Study (Ross, Greene & House, 1977) Ss asked to wear sandwich-board advertising "Eat At Joe's" around campus. DVs: 1) Do subjects ("Ss") agree/disagrees to wear sandwich board. 2) Ss estimate likelihood others make same choice as self 3) Ss make trait judgments about those who chose same/different from self

9. Eat At Joe's Study: Likelihood Others Would Wear Sign

10. Eat At Joe's Study: Trait Inferences Degree of Trait Attributions Subject Group Target of Evaluation

11. Class 15: Tell Me a Story: Suppression, Disclosure, and Coping

12. Serendipity and Scientific Discovery: Pennebaker’s Inhibition and Illness Hypothesis • Communication studies: • People like groups more when they get to talk more. • Polygraph (lie detector) studies: • Liberation through confession • 3. Personal Experience: • Asthma and parents; relief about marital problems; career problems through writing

13. Suppression Suppression is ACTIVELY, CONSCIOUSLY hiding or not- showing arousing thoughts and/or feelings. -- Upset in argument with boss, don't want to show it -- Stifling a fit of giggles in church. -- Attracted to someone, but don't want to be obvious Suppression is NOT repression, which is done unconsciously. Suppression = intentionally hide thoughts/feelings from others Repression = unconsciously hide thoughts/feelings from self Dan Wegner "White Bear" studies -- Rebound effect -- Effect stronger for arousing content (sex vs. dean)

14. Clues Leading to Inhibition and Illness Hypothesis 1. People like to talk and learn from talking about themselves. 2. Certain kinds of events create communication conflicts— want to talk but afraid to talk. 3. Response to this conflict is inhibition, which is a stressor. 4. Confronting difficult topics reduces inhibition, reduces stress.

15. TOPIC HEART RATE COMMENTS Girlfriend 77 Some disagreements about intimacy, but we are close. College courses 71 Most have been interesting … tests another matter Failing exams 76 It’s been hard on my ego. Parents 84 We were a close family until divorce Parents’ divorce 103 It was no big deal, really. The future 79 It scares me. Warren Case Study: Body Signs vs. Overt Reports

16. Inability to Discuss Childhood Trauma “I had always been close to my mother. If she had known what [my stepfather] was doing to me, it would have broken her heart. I wanted to tell her so much.” “Looking back on it all, the very worst thing was that I couldn’t talk to my mother anymore. I had to keep a wall between us. If I wasn’t careful, the wall might crumble and I’d tell her everything.” NOTE: Those who report trauma have more health problems than other groups in survey.

17. MORE EVIDENCE RE. TRAUMA / ILLNESS Psychology Today Survey, May 1982 a. Question re. sexual trauma b. 22% women, 10% men report trauma c. Traumas linked to ulcers, infections, heart problems. d. Childhood traumas most health-debilitating. Why? Hardest to talk about. Zale Corporation employee study a. Interviews employees b. Those with childhood trauma most often ill c. Nature of trauma (sexual, death of parent, etc.) didn't determine illness. What did? d. Whether or not person talked about trauma.

18. Effects of Disclosure on Health, Survey Samples

19. Response to Death of Spouse(From J.W. Pennebaker, Opening Up) Group A Group B Strenuous exercise. Seek understanding of what Stay mentally occupied. happened, and why. Stay socially active. Develop new interests. It’s OK to hurt, feel pain.   All emotions are OK Don’t allow yourself to cry. Accept that your life changed   Let true friends hear your story, Be up-beat, don’t depress others feel your pain.

20. Inhibition and Illness Model 1. Inhibiting thoughts and feelings is stressful 2. In short term, suppression leads to physiological arousal. 3. Over the long term, suppression leads to immunocompromise. 4. The result is increased susceptibility to a wide range of illness.

21. Catharsis Insight * Emotional buildup causes stress. * Release pent-up emotions (catharsis) releases stress. * Language provides an outlet for venting pent up emotions. * Uncompleted problems are emotionally arousing. * Uncompleted tasks stay alive until finished. * Language helps people get “closure” on unfinished business. Catharsis vs. Insight

22. Initial Test of the Inhibition of Health Model Pennebaker & Beal, 1986 Subjects (n = 46) assigned to one of four writing conditions: 1. Thoughts and Feelings (Insight) 2. Emotions only (Catharsis) 3. Facts only (Suppress) 4. Trivial topics (Control) Conditions 1-3 write about some past, negative event. Condition 4 writes about trivial, non-emotional topic Subjects write on four consecutive days, 15 minutes each time.

23. “Insight Writing” Instructions “I want you to write continuously about the most upsetting or traumatic experience of your entire life. Don’t worry about spelling, grammar, or sentence structure. In your writing, I want your deepest thoughts and feelings about your experience. …. Ideally, it should be something you have not talked about with others in detail. It is critical, however, that you let yourself go and explore those deepest emotions and thoughts that you have. Your choice of trauma for each session is up to you.

24. Types of Traumas Disclosed • Parents’ divorce: “Son, the problem with me and your • mother was having kids in the first place. Things haven’t been • the same since you and your sister’s birth”. • 2. Responsibility for grandmother’s death. • 3. Molestation by grandfather, at age 13. • 4. Hiding sexual orientation from parents • “Family abuse, alcoholism, suicide attempts, public humiliation • were frequent topics”

25. Pennebaker & Beale (1986) Results Immediate Moods: Thoughts & Feelings lowest Health Center visits over 6 months: Thoughts & feelings = 0.5 visits All other groups = 1.5 visits Long term coping (after 4 months) T& F higher on: * Moods * Optimism * Self-reported health

26. Disclosure and Immunocompetence Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1988 Questions: 1. Are initial disclosure and health findings "real"? 2. Does disclosure improves immune functioning. Method: Same as initial study, but: 1. Just two groups Thoughts and Feelings vs. Control 2. Write 20 min., over 4 days Blood samples taken at: 1. Day one of study 2. Last day of writing 3. 6 weeks after study ends Use "mitogen test" -- bodies that stimulate antibody production

27. Disclosure and Immunocompetence(continued) Results: Which group produced more antibodies to mitogen? X Thoughts and Feelings Control group Role of Insight: 80% of T&F writers report insight-related benefits (perspective shift, new ideas about self, etc.) Quality of Writing: Writing that improved health was: 1. More emotional 2. Images and analogies 3. Clear organization: Beginning, middle, end.

28. Other Disclosure Studies Show: Disclosure  higher T-Cell count  improved antibody response to Epstein-Barr  improved antibody response to Hepatitis B Improved management of chronic illness: Diabetes Asthma Other chronic illness Effect replicated in scores of studies, by many different researchers

29. Why Does Writing Promote Coping? Harber & Pennebaker, 1991 Thought Intrusions classic symptom of trauma Ironic effect of suppression Emotions and recurring thoughts

30. Bonanza Model of Writing and Traumatic Recovery

31. Intra-Psychic Benefits of Writing Tulving, Paivio dual code systems of memory a. Episodic – imagistic, holistic, emotional, self-relevant, chronologically organized—"analog" b. Semantic – fact-based, non-emotional, category based, elemental rather than holistic – "digital" Work of emotional assimilation is converting episodic into semantic. Writing (and verbal disclosure) promote this psychological digestion. a. Dissolves phenomenal whole into semantic bits. b. Associates traumatic experience with existing memory and beliefs. c. Consider the "unpacking" of semantic network

32. Why Does Coping Require Disclosure?The Emotional Broadcaster Theory

33. Daily Talking Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the Persian Gulf War Pennebaker & Harber, 1993

34. Intra-Personal Reasons to Disclose Schachter Anxiety and Affiliation Studies a. Clarify causes of distress b. Validate one's own reactions Sympathetic Listening as Social Support a. Making sense of Trauma b. Perspective c. Insight d. Belongingness, acceptance Failure to Disclose can be a Health Risk a. Prolonged suppression → chronic stress. b. Disclosure reduces illness.

35. The Emotional Broadcaster Theory Proximal need to discloseIntra-psychic benefits Distal result of disclosure Information transfer

36. Personal News is Widely Broadcasted • Disclose copiously after major events • Disclose with minimal prompting • Disclose when asked not to do so • Disclose unconsciously • Disclose against self-interest • Disclosure is cross-cultural • Disclosure is ancient

37. Well-Told Disclosures are the Most Therapeutic • Disclosures that create “movies” in listeners minds predict success in therapy (Bucci, 1997) • Disclosures with best narrative structure advance illness recovery (Harber & Pennebaker, 1992) • Disclosures Benefit Listeners • Testimony therapy (Agger & Jensen 1990) • Gossip is informative (Baumeister et al., 2004)

38. Emotions Propel Disclosures “The Social Telegraph”

39. The Morgue Study Harber, K.D & Cohen, D., Jou. Language and Soc. Psych, 2005 Participants: 33 undergrads (55% female) Event: Field trip to UM hospital morgue Self-reported reactions: 3 days after morgue visit Story tracking exercise

40. Hannah (F ) 624-8324told 1 Maja (F ) 873-2345 told 0 Lew (M) 927-8743told 1 Primary Sharing Marlow (M) told 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ilana (F) told 2 Secondary Sharing Deb (F) told 0 Max (M) told 1 Tertiary Sharing Gabe (M) told 0 Andrea (F) told 1

41. Story Sharing Following Morgue Field Trip Tertiary Sharing (Sharing by students’ Friends’ Friends) (n = 27) Secondary Sharing (Sharing by students’ Friends) (n = 32) Primary Sharing (Sharing by students) (n = 33) Number/rate of sharing 32.00 (97%) 27.00 (82%) 16.00 (48%) Mean contacts per sharer 6.21 (4.06) 1.46 (1.21) 1.26 ( 1.20) Total no. contacts this level 205 299 377 Total hearing about event: ≈ 881

42. Students’ Emotional Reactions and Story Sharing Tertiary Sharing (Sharing by students’ Friends’ Friends) (n = 26) Secondary Sharing (Sharing by students’ Friends) (n = 32) Primary Sharing (Sharing by students) (n = 33) Students’ reactions .73** .24 .46* Students’ disclosures .56** .61** Note: Students’ disclosures represent proxy index of emotional reaction.

43. Violation of Expectations and Story Travel Misfortune Vignettes Study (Harber, in prep) Sample n = 403, 67% female, age = 19.63

44. No No Hal breaks a small desk lamp he bought on sale at K-Mart. Yes No Your friend feels very strongly about someone, and plans to propose they move in together. Unexpectedly, this person tells your friend "I think we should cool things off”. Yes Yes Diane finds her window broken and a note tied to a rock. The note says, "Hey Didi, remember me?" She hasn't been called Didi since high school, 5 yrs. ago and 200 miles away. “Stories of Misfortune” Teller Upset Story Unusual No Yes Racing to her spa, Jane almost hits a small boy, who is left shaking. A cop stops her, but by flirting Jane gets only a warning. She says she often gets away with stuff like this.

45. Anticipated Sharing of Misfortune Stories, Due to Teller Distress and Story Unusualness

46. Emotions and Schemas Where there is fire there is: Smoke A short funny story with a punch line is a: Joke Mighty tree that sheds acorns is a: Oak Popular soft drink, not Pepsi Coke Open an egg, yellow part is: Yolk

47. Discrepancy Theories of Emotion and Trauma Emotions arise from schema violations Emotions alert us when schemas (beliefs) and experience (facts) conflict Emotions stay active until schemas and experience difference is resolved Traumas arise when fundamental beliefs are violated by experience World is well-ordered World is just Self is good, competent, worthy Changing fundamental beliefs very hard, people resist doing so Victim blaming, traumatic amnesia, emotional dissociation Listeners don't want to hear stories that offend their own basic beliefs. Trauma victims in compound double bind: internal and external resistance to revealing trauma.

48. Writing and Traumatic Recovery Writing about negative events may boost morale. How so? Active coping Purposeful activity Improved self-image Psychologically and socially safe

49. Does Writing Actually Heal Traumatic Memory? Rimé: No, it doesn't. Ss write/don't write about trauma. X days later return, asked to think about trauma, then rate how upsetting it is to recall trauma. No differences between expt. groups. This being so, what good is writing? Harber & Pennebaker: No claims about the potency of intentionally-recovered memories. Instead, focus on their ability to spontaneously intrude. Real question: Does writing reduce thought intrusions? Yes -- Klein & Boals, 2001. Expressive writing reduces intrusions.