Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
121 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Process theory of Happiness |
happiness is the outcome of focus on something other than self eg flow |
|
|
Ed Denier |
past president of APS Association of psychological science. Formed as a reaction to clinical majority in APA. part of Martin Seligman's commitee current president of IPPA international positive psychology association contributed to the concept of subjective well-being |
|
|
Subjective well-being tested |
two components 1.emotional Ratio of Positive Affect to negative affect. High swb = high ratio of positive to negative affect 2. Life satisfaction cognitive evaluation of how our life aside from emotion.the domains of life: family, work, school. *studies find swb stable from 2 months to 17 years *most instruments measure trait rather than state *the correlation between positive affect in various situations (work recreation, alone or with others) is fairly high |
|
|
PANAS |
Positive and negative affect survey 1980 assess PA and NA 20 items on a Likert scale PA: I'm excited, interested, proud Negative emotion: I'm distressed, upset, guilty |
|
|
PANAS-X |
60 Items 11 scales based on factor analysis of positive emotions Positive: Joviality self-assurance attentiveness Negative: fear hostility guilt sadness other shyness fatigue serenity surprise |
|
|
Subjective happiness scale |
4 items 7 choice Likert scale 1.In general I consider myself... not a very happy to a very happy person 2.compared to most people i consider myself... 3.Some people are generally happy they enjoy life regardless of what is going on does this describe you... 4. some people are not very happy though not depressed. does this describe you? |
|
|
is negative and positive emotion on a spectrum |
No possible to see high rates of positive and negative emotion not at opposite ends of the same continuum to separate continuums |
|
|
Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) diener |
5 items 7 choice Likert scale highest possible points 35 lowest 5 strongly agree 7 disagree 1 1. in most ways my life os close to my ideal 2. the conditions of my life are excellent 3. Im satisfied with my life 4. so far I have gotten the important things in life 5. If I could live my life over i would change almost nothing
|
|
|
stability of SWB |
top down: trait, genetic and fixed, shapes the way you perceive things bottom up: state happiness, what is happening affects emotion measure across time if there is stability then most likely trait |
|
|
Eid Diener 2004 what percent of swl variance stable over time |
analyzed SWl over 2 months 75-85% of variance stable over time correlation extremely high |
|
|
how to calculate variance |
correlation squared= variance |
|
|
Lucus and Danellon 2006 what percent of variance ina any one year due to trait stable variance... what is the correlation... |
37% of variance any one year = is due to trait stable variance correlation: .6 |
|
|
Lucas 1996 stability of PA NA LS over 3 years... variance accounted for by trait... |
stability of PA NA LS over 3 years r=.56 .60 variance: 35% accounted for by trait |
|
|
Magnus and Diener 1991 SWLS over 4 years correlation & variance |
analysed SWLS over 4 years r= .58 variance 36% |
|
|
Fajita and diener 2005 asked one question over 17 years |
asked one question over 17 years r= .5-.6 30% of variance is due to trait variable keep assessments stable remaining 70 changes over time |
|
|
PANAS-c |
for children |
|
|
deiner and Larson 1984 assessment of momentary effect across situations and time alone vs social recreation vs work novel vs typical |
assessment of momentary effect across situations and time PA/NA social vs PA/NA alone: r= .70 variance is trait = .49 PA/NA work vs PA/NA recreation: r= .70 variance= .49 PA/NA novel vs PA/NA typical: r= .70 variance= .49 |
|
|
Lucas 2004 what percent of stable variance shared across domains... |
compared life satisfaction at a number of domains 50% (or less) of stable variance shared across domains 70% of variance unique to domains |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study PA/NA |
happiness and PA/NA depression and dejection: r= -.31 fatigue and inertia: r= -.30 vigor and activity: r= .30 Tension and anxiety: r= -.24 confusion and bewilderment: r= -.14 anger and hostility: r= -.09 |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness and social circumstances |
Defined pension plan value: r= .29 bank account value: r= .28 stock value r= .22 debt amount: r= -.19 home equity: r= .18 car value: r= .18 |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness and stress and coping |
Money stressors: r= -. 45 number of chronic stressors: r -.37 social and recreation stressors: r = -.33 love marriage and stressors: r= -.32 Residence housing stressors: r= -.29 work stressors: r= -.27 Family children: r= -.23 number of negative life events: r= -.22 health or general stressors r= -.17, -.18 |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness health |
energy: r= .32 self rated health: r= .27 overall sleep quality: r= -.27 chronic pain: r= -.22 exersise: no relationship hours of sleep |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness disposition |
Self-esteem: r=.48 loneliness: r=-.43 optimism: r= .27 emotional: r= .2
|
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness sexual intimacy |
emotional satisfaction: r= .42 physical pleasure: r= .27 frequanecy of sex: r= .18 |
|
|
Chicago health ageing and social relations study happiness and religiosity |
no relationship |
|
|
adaptation to life events |
usually adaptation events= return to baseline marriage: 2 years widowhood: 8 years divorce: long term effects unemployment: long term effects long term disability: 8 years |
|
|
children SWB instruments |
PANAS C
Student Life Satisfaction Scale Multidimensional students life satisfaction scale -family "i enjoy being at home" "my family gets along" -friends "friends treat me well" - self "Im good looking" -school " I like my School" -living environment " I like where i live" |
|
|
Children SWB and life events LS |
positive daily events eg complements: r= .39 negative daily events: r= -.39 Positive major event: r=.30 Negative Major events: r= -.22 |
|
|
Children SWB and LS and personal attributes |
-self esteem -internal locus of control -emotionally stable temperament ( low neuroticism) -attribution style good events: stable, internal, global bad events: unstable, external, local unrelated to IQ |
|
|
Parent-child relations and SWB |
warm attentive parenting= -social competent -internalising (depression) and externalising (aggression) both less common why? 1. temperament: personality can encourage good parenting 2. continuity of caregiving quality: consistency for positive outcome. 3. emotional regulation styles: how child controls emotion 4. internal working model: early relationship lead to model of what relationships should be like |
|
|
Parent-adolescent relations and SWB huebner 1991 parents or freinds mor eimportant |
children 10-13 LS more related to satisfaction with family than to friends no relation to demographics or grades |
|
|
Parent-adolescent relations and SWB Amata 1994 closeness with mothers vs closeness with fathers |
emotional closeness to mothers and fathers make independent and separate contributions to LS |
|
|
Parent-adolescent relations and SWB Demo Alcock 1966 strongest predictor of adolescent wellbeing |
Mother Daughter disagreement strongest predictor of adolescent well-being |
|
|
Diener sun 1998 childlessness |
across 43 nations number of children related slighgtly to SWB no distinction made between childlessness by choice no indication of direction |
|
|
childlessness |
has no effect in SWB if by choice |
|
|
siblings and SWB |
only children do not have lower SWB |
|
|
Polit and Falco Meta-Analysis only children hotility with siblings sibling favouritism |
only children better adjusted than middle low warmth, and high hostility btw siblings= lower swb more externalising poorer peer relationships sibling favouritism = lower SWB, emotional and behavioural problems positive effects of close relationships into adulthood |
|
|
Marriage and SWB |
higher sWB than single and divorced& widowed greater emotional commitment= higher SWB less benefit in collectivist countries why? SWB may influence events in marriage higher SWB= greater chance of marriage marriage= emotional support and less stress social support for marriage (family, financial ect) Lucas 2005 30 000 germans those who got married stayed married and had a higher SWB long before marriage |
|
|
personality and SWB extraversion |
positive relationship between PA and Swb costa and McRae 1980: r with PA = .20 4% DeNeveand cooper 1998: meta r with SWB= .17 4%-5% Lucas and fajita 2000: meta r with SWB= .37 15% of variance Vasya et al 2002: R with PA= .42 15% of variance |
|
|
personality and SWB Neuroticism |
Positive relationship with NA costa and McRae 1980: r with NA= .20 DeNeveand cooper 1998: meta r with SWB= -.24 Vasya et al 2002: r with NA= .61 35% of variance in in NA due to neuroticism negative affect more related to genetic factors positive affect more situational |
|
|
personality and SWB agreeableness |
Positive relationship with PA vasya et al 2002: r with NA= -.43 r with pa .34 |
|
|
heritability coeficient swb corellation smallest component contributed by... genetic effects are... |
MZ correlation minus DZ and double it =h2 for swb typically between .4 and .5 -smallest component contributed by - shared enviroment -all the genetic effects are non-additive |
|
|
heritability of SWB Tellegen 1988 |
MZ and DZ twins reared together or apart PA: h2 .40 ( half variance can be attributed genetics) NA: h2= .55 well being: h2= .48 |
|
|
heritability of SWB roysamb 2002 |
Adult MZ and DZ twins Global SWB: h2 = .46 males .54 females two types if environmental factors 1. shared environment (parenting, teachers) 2. non-shared individual unique experience no influence from shared |
|
|
heritability of SWB Stubbe 2005 |
Adult MZ and DZ twins, siblings Life Satisfaction h2 = .38 all effects non-additive-> genes dominant and resesive |
|
|
Physiology and SWB |
Hemispheric asymmetry positive affect associated with higher activity int he left hemisphere of the brain. Negative affect associated with right tomarken 1992: higher left-right asymmetry associated with higher PA and lower NA Urry 2004: higher left-right asymmetry associated with self-acceptance, life purpose, self-growth, autonomy Davidson 2003: mindfulness meditation increases left-right asymmetry
|
|
|
Easterlin Paradox test money and swb |
happiness increases with income within countries but not across countries GDP doesn't predict happiness averages 1) relationship btw swb and income gets weaker at higher levels of income stronger at lower levels 2) ppl in wealtheir nations report higher swb than those from poorer 3) the extremely wealthy report higher swb than the regular |
|
|
Hedonic treadmill |
happiness increases after increase in income but returns to set point after a series of time relative income (your income in relation to others) is more predictive of happiness than absolute income. |
|
|
Easterlin Paradox evidence Kahneman and Deaton 2010 LS |
analyzed 450 000 responses Gallup-Healthways well-being index daily survey of 1000 people *Ls rises with log income: changes to income more impactful for those who have low income then high. not happy just satisfied *PA rises for log income 0-75 thousand, greater than 75 no significant difference *low income= low life evaluation and low emotional well-being. |
|
|
Easterlin Paradox evidence Sacks Stevenson and Wolfers 2012 |
analysed 2010 data from 122 countries from Gallup world poll contrils "ladder of life" measure of swb. rungs 10-1 with 10 being the best possible life. -As GDP rises LS does too but tapers off with really high income. -LS rises linearly with log per capita income, between countries - LS rises linearly with log per capita income within countries - no satiation point beyond which income completely unrelated to income - change economic growth related to LS - USA a paradoxical case GDP has doubled but LS has decreased slightly. Perhaps to growing income inequality |
|
|
Easterlin Paradox evidence Biswas Diener and Diener 2001 |
Poor homeless in Calcutta have positive SWB
|
|
|
Easterlin Paradox evidence 2006 Biswas-Diener and Diener mixed messages |
Us homeless have low LS but LS in Calcutta homeless high all report low LS with health, income, housing, and material resources all report positive LS with foodS. |
|
|
Easterlin Paradox evidence Biswas-Diener and Diener 2002 four findings |
1.strong correlation with national wealth and swb between countries 2.weak correlations between national wealth and swb within countries (larger in poor countries) 3.1970-1990 wealth gains in developed countries = weak gains in overall swb 4. those with material goals lower swb than other goals |
|
|
SWB around the world |
SWLS 7= high 4= neutral Forbes richest Americans: 5.8 Traditional Masia Kenya: 5.4 Pennsylvania Amish: 5.1 Illinois university students: 4.7 Calcutta slum dwellers: 4.4 Uganda university students: 3.2 Calcutta homeless: 3.2 California homeless: 2.8 |
|
|
Materialism Stolberg 2004 |
materialism negatively correlated with swb |
|
|
Materialism Bodenhausen 2012 |
materialist consumer cues lead to -increased negative affect - reduced social involvement - greater competitiveness - all measures of social good reduced |
|
|
Materialism Piffa 2012 |
wealthier individuals ( with nicer cars) more likely to break the law while driving -run stop signs other studies wealthy ppl... -take things from others -lie cheat to gain advantage after being primed with things |
|
|
Happiness individualist vs collectivist |
individualist: personal needs, goals, agency, individuals achievement collectivist: social goals, needs, and approval of others SWB in collectivist countries -less likely to emphasise individual happiness -relation btw PA/NA ratio and overall swb weaker -pleasant emotions require a social component - more linked to interpersonal emotions (friendliness) than to personal (pride) -Asian Americans more than European -Made happy by goals approved of by others -
|
|
|
LU and Gilmour Happiness chinese and us students |
US: emphasise enjoyment of present life personal agency trumps social restrictions pursuit of personal happiness cannot be compromised Chinese: emphasise spiritual cultivation transcendence of the present underline importance of social obligation |
|
|
Cognitive effects of PA |
What does PA do -preferentially cues positive memories -promotes: flexibilty, efficiency, innovation, thoroughness -especially in complex tasks: Dunker candle Task, Remote associates test |
|
|
Dunker Candle Task |
given a candle, box of tacks, pack of matches and have to hang candle70% completion for those with high PA; 15% in control |
|
|
Remote associates Test |
PA scores higher than neutral, NA find rhyming words like mower and foreign |
|
|
Broaden and Building Theory Barbra friedfrickson |
NA prepares is for threats -narrows perceptual focus -prepares specific responses PA broadens our thought-action repertoire -play -creativity -openness -exploration |
|
|
Broaden and Building Theory diagram |
Positive Emotions->Novel Thoughts, Activities, Relationships-> enduring personal relationships, social support skills, and knowledge-> Enhanced survival, health, and fullfilment->positive emotion... |
|
|
Broaden and Building Theory evidence |
Heightened creativity in mania induced PA=global processing bias-b cognition PA reduces the effects of NA |
|
|
Brain mechanisms of PA |
increased dopamine in parts of the brain cortical areas in charge of cognitive flexibility prefrontal areas-cingulate gyrus: -creative problem solving -openness to information/exploration -integration of ideas -focus in negative issues when necessary -help you keep multiple perspectives in mind which lead to ... cooperativeness social responsibility improved negotiation skills generosity to self and others attention deployment? working memory? memory consolidation? |
|
|
Positive affect and health mortality ostir 2000 mexican americans and death |
2 year prospective study of elderly Mexican Americans having a hhigher PA at start= reduced death over 2 years relationship even after controlling for BMI, NA, smoking, drinking |
|
|
mortality levy 2002 positive view of aging... |
23-year prospective study or elderly More positive view of self-perception of ageing = 7.5 years longer life controlled for age, sex, health status |
|
|
mortality 7 studies find higher swb= lower mortality rate |
swb predicts -fewer heart attacks -better survival from heart disease - lower incidence of strokes -lower levels of bad behaviours ie smoking |
|
|
Positive affect and health Pressman and cohen 2005 |
meta-analysis of PA and health higher trait PA= fewer colds after virus exposure High PA= higher levels of immunoglobin |
|
|
PA and work |
roberts 2003 high PA at age 18 associated with more prestigious jobs at 26 High PA= higher income wright and straw 1999 ppl with high PA have more positive job assessments from supervisors causal direction/ |
|
|
PA and relationships |
lucus 2003 High PA= higher probability of marriage and more satisfaction with marriage -more positive perceptions of interaction partners -more collaborative conflict resolution - interest in friendship and social activities |
|
|
Factors of happiness & big 5 related to happiness |
genetics 50% life circumstances 20% activities and practices 30% extroversion and neuroticism |
|
|
increasing SWB |
-pursue significant life goals - be active -social -do good - find positive meaning, count your blessings, show gratitude -be open/ mindful sunshine-> stock market goes down on cloudy days ie less positive and optimistic |
|
|
Self-esteem and popular theorists |
maslow-> SE the highest d-motive, also leads to growth choices rogers-> unconditional positive regard from others and self Bandura and Mischel-> self efficacy, and person construct: how we think of our selves |
|
|
Who introduced the term self esteem |
William James 130yrs old |
|
|
clinical interest in SE |
low SE correlate in a number of disorders 24 DSM disorders ; anxiety depression outcomes sadness anger / hostility shame guilt and loneliness one of top 3 covariates in personality and social psychology |
|
|
SE state vs trait |
State: moment to moment variation, especially in adolescence trait: long-term average level |
|
|
Se as cognitive |
objective cognitive evaluations of self |
|
|
Se as emotion |
affection for or liking |
|
|
SE self/ ideal match |
William james: ratio of successes to pretensions Rogerian self vs ideal self-low discrepancy = high se |
|
|
two elements of SE |
Self-competence : based on history of successes and failures -relates to self-efficacy - irrational attempts to avoid failure like... * low-risk taking * self-handicapping make sure failure cannot be attributed to you Self-worthiness: not skills, as an individual inner intrinsic value affection for and liking of self irrationally high= conceitedness , and arrogance |
|
|
Development of SE |
young children: egocentrism make it high, also don't make self-comparisons Middle childhood: drops because cognitive development enables more realistic comparisons Early adolescence: puberty, school changes. females have a more substantial drop than boys because * female puberty makes women less desirable eg weight gain * female puberty usually coincides with school changes late adolescence to early adulthood: rises Adulthood: highly stable until decline |
|
|
Domains of competence |
1) early childhood : *cognitive* peer acceptance* physical (movement)* Physical appearance* behavioural conduct 2) middle to late childhood: *scholastic competence *athletic* peer acceptance * Behavioural conduct * physical appearance 3) Adolescence: * scholastic * job competance * Athletic * physical appearance * peer acceptance * conduct/ morality ( more internalized than behavioural 4) University:*Scholastic*intellectual ability * creativity * job competence * *Athletic* physical appearance* Morality *sense of humour 5) early through middle adulthood: intelligence*job camps*athletic* physical appearance* sociability* morality *sense of humour *nurturance *household *management of household and adequacy as a provider 6) Late Adulthood: cognitive abilities * job competence * physical appearance * relationships * morality *nurturance *leisure activities *health/mortality *household management and adequacy as a provider |
|
|
Gender and Se |
Females: more dependent on social acceptance or rejection than males. experience significant drop in SE in adolesence Males: SE more dependent on competence (sucess and failure) than females se more related to independencelack of emotion personal involvement less dramtic drop during adolescence |
|
|
Values and SE |
social values: what does society value SES; different values at different ses levels eg -edu vs job skills -manual vs intellectual prowess -strength vs understanding personal values : Badnua and mischel pesonal construction parental values personal skills and interests |
|
|
Low self-esteem |
classical low self-esteem low worthiness and low competence -bleak outlook -concerned about not failing -Self-handicapping, and low-risk taking |
|
|
Worthiness based self-esteem |
Narsacistic se high worthyness and low competence -look for approval from others -dont argue or show their opinion, dependent on others/ relationships |
|
|
competence based self-esteem |
Antisocial se high competence and low worthiness ratio of failure to success don't care what others think as long as they are successful do almost anything to achieve success minimise their impact in negative events and over emphasise impact on positive outcomes |
|
|
HIgh SE |
Authentic SE competence and worthiness perform better school, performance-> If you dont believe your good at something you won't invest effort into being good at it self-fulfilling prophecy. |
|
|
Functions of Authentic SE |
self maintenance buffers against stress, anxiety,-> already know we are worthy growth or enhancement SE related to development of new skill/relationships -happpier -imporved job performance, problem solving, academic out comes |
|
|
Authentic SE associate with |
-extraversion -relationship satisfaction -academic performance -higher ethical moral standards-> and behvaiour that follows values -stronger immune system
|
|
|
Characteristics of authentic SE |
stable: balanced over time consistent: -explicit-> how they feel about self-conscious implcit-> unconscious attitudes, measure reaction time to pictures and attitudes correlation between explicit and implicit high for high SE True: Don't need to be constantly validated because SE is so strong Secure: able to recognise faults and shortcomings as well as strengths |
|
|
Sources of Self esteem |
Parents: genetic heritability: 35% environment: 65% Parental support: involvement be a part of their lives in a positive way and acceptance mother =self worth father= competence Dad recognizes your achievements mom just loves you parental acceptance: warmth (moms more so) Parenting style: dimensions of control how rigid are their rules. Best parenting style authoritarian/egalitarian. Child has a say in decisions related to their lives. Parental examples: How do the parents feel about themselves parents low SE = child low SE Birth order: higher for first or only born children->because first borns receive more attention all throughout life |
|
|
Development of SE |
Childhood precursors: Being valued by other middle childhood and adolescence; ages 7-11crucial for SE, children meaner, more sources of evaluation ( academic, athletic, relationships) and comparison |
|
|
Barriers to positive SE development |
-early negative parental experiences -SES deprivation-> poor=low SE (worthiness) -competence-> situation mis match ie your strenghts not being evaluated - Internal-external values conflict -> what you think is valuable vs what others do |
|
|
SE defining moment Chris Maruck |
specific life events critical to changes in SE |
|
|
SE defining moment stage one |
choice point something that will challenge and individuals abilities, skill, and competence vs a safe option worthy alternative= higher level of competence less worthy alternative= current competence affected by SE from the past ie failures, bad decisions |
|
|
SE defining moment stage two |
choice and conflict awareness of choice and the significance of issues ( that one choice will lead to growth) |
|
|
SE defining moment stage three |
struggling and action decision making process most difficult part quick decisions less likely to be growth choices |
|
|
SE defining moment stage 4 |
make choice If positive choice: release, relaxation, and pleasure If negative: relief, tension, dipleasure/ unhappiness know we made wrong choice |
|
|
SE defining moment stage 5 |
think about meaning if positive choice: meaning and affirmation validating self-worth If negative choice: meaning and disaffirmation |
|
|
SE defining moment stage 6 |
on positive choice: SE in positive direction On negative decsion: SE unchanged or negative |
|
|
Harters Self Esteem Program step one |
assessment -how is individual functioning in important domains -what are individuals weakness and strengths -who are important others in individuals life |
|
|
Harters Self-Esteem Program step two |
tailoring interventions design programs for individuals needs Cognitive interventions: -develop skills -reduce value of areas where person is doing poorly -increase value of areas where person is doing well -More realistic self image: attribution process-> attribute negative to external, and positive to internal Social interventions -help person to see that support is available -encorage others around them to be more supportive - find new sources of social support |
|
|
Mruk's Self Esteem Program week one |
Focusing phase introduction to self esteem, and journalling-> keep track of the things that happen Take Multidimensional self esteem inventory -general self esteem: *global self esteem * identity intergration: how well you know the self *defensiveness: take responsibility for failures, shocks to Se competence: * personal power *self control-> body functions Worthiness *loavability-> deep relationships *likability-> friendship, popularity *moral self approval-> they follow morals * body appearance-> attractiveness |
|
|
Mruk's Self Esteem Program week two |
awareness phase -increase awareness of self esteem and its types -identify strengths from MSEI -Identify personal sources of self esteem Must find two of each in coming weeks... -personal achievement -evidence of influence of power -acceptance or being valued -virtue or acting on beliefs |
|
|
Mruk's Self Esteem Program week three |
enhancing worthiness *identity habitual ways of maintain low se -asked to identify 10 of your most qualities or attributes *identify mistakes in thinking or perceiving -emotional reasoning; letting feeling override rational thought -filtering: focusing on negatives, and ignoring positives in situations, downplay positive feed back -Negative labelling: using negative labelling to describe sel for others -Over generalization: over extending negative significance of event eg bad grad=bad student -Personalization: sensitivity about events makes it more painful than necessary. eg shes late bc she hates me Implementing restructuring choose situations that reduce self-esteem note all feeling s and rank their intensity 1-10 10 being intense. Identify all thoughts in that situation -name all errors identified from that list -go back re-think them, change thought to be consistent with situation |
|
|
Mruk's Self Esteem Program week 4 |
enhancing competence review and share journal enhance competence through problem-solving: 1. recognise there is a problem 2. understand problem thoroughly_.factors and variables 3. decide on goal 4. identify possible solutions 5. determine consequences of each solution 6. chose best most realistic solution 7. make detailed plan for implementation |
|
|
Mruk's Self Esteem Program week 5 |
Managing self esteem review and share journals this isn't the end SE must be continually managed Develop self esteem action plan for issues -what sources of support -what are the skills required -may add extra week month later to remind them what they have learned. |
|
|
Self-efficacy |
Albert bandura introduced the construct |
|
|
efficacy expectations |
is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce an outcome in a specific situation |
|
|
sheerer self-efficacy scale |
23 items 5 point likert scale general self efficacy 17 items "when i make plans i am sure I can make them work" "If I can't do a job the first time I try until I can" " when I set important goals for my self i rarely achieve them" 'I avoid learning new things when they look difficult" "I am a self reliant person" "I give up on things before completing them" social self efficacy 6 items " It's difficult for me to make new friends" " I don't handle myself in social gatherings" " when I'm trying to become friends with someone who seems uninterested at first I don't give up very easily" |
|
|
where self efficacy comes from |
vicarious experince: social learning-> learn from others sucess and failure. if someone with similar skills to you can succeed than you believe you can to. Imagined experience: imagining sucessful control of your enviroment. eg imagine making a goal in sport verbal persuasion: what others say about us and our competence emotional states: positive states lead to higher levels of perceived efficacy |
|
|
Why is self-efficacy important 1. physical health: |
1. physical health: -enhances cessation of unhealthy behaviours and adoption of healthy ones -crucial to stress management, diet, and compliance with medical regimes -positive influence on immune system -reduces blood pressure and cardiac reactivity Phychotherapy |
|
|
Why is self-efficacy important 2. Academic performance |
2. Academic performance: -higher performance at every level -engage in positive self-talk eg you can do this -have positive emotion eg feel good about taking a test |
|
|
Why is self-efficacy important 3. self-regulation-influences |
3. self-regulation
-influences the goals we set-wont set goals we don't think we will reach -influences choice of goal-directed activities -influences effort and persistence towards goal |
|
|
Why is self-efficacy important 4. Psychotherapy |
goal of most programs to increase self efficacy with many tactics through 1.imagined experiences 2.vicarious experinces 3.verbal persuasion 4.performance experience 5.body emotional states: feel more efficacious when relaxed and calm through... hypnosis, relaxation training, bio feedback, meditation, medication 6.By raising self-esteem |
|
|
enhancing the impact of success |
-seeing competence as incremental -changing causal attributions: internal ve external -encourage minor distortions *exaggerate your own competence * enhancing perception of control *enhancing perceptions of competence of others |
|
|
Test Friedrickson induced PA |
-induced PA in the lab=a global bias in attention tasks in the lab -PA increased the number of activities a person can imagine doing -NA reduces the number of activities a person can imagine doing |
|
|
Test Lybomirsky sheldon, |
-high PA at 18= more prestegious job at 26, and more positve job assessments -high pa greater liklihood of marriage and marriage satisfaction -higher survival from heart attack and less strokes -higher levels immunoglobinA activities under our control account for 40% of variance in happiness |
