The Hardy Personality

The Hardy Personality 

Kobasa and Maddi (1977) suggested that some people are more psychologically 'hardy' than others. The hardy personality includes a range of characteristics which provide defenses against the negative effects of stress.

Control - hardy people see themselves as being in control of their lives, rather than being controlled by external factors beyond their control. 

Commitment - Hardy people are involved with the world around them, and have a strong sense of purpose. 

Challenge - Hardy people see life challenges as problems to be overcome rather than as threats or stressors. They enjoy change as an opportunity for development. 

Research on the hardy personality:

Kobasa (1979) studies about 800 American business executives, assessing stress using Holmes and Rahe's SRRS. Approximately 150 of the participants were classified as high stress according to their SRRS scores. Of these, some had a low illness record whereas others has a high illness record whereas others had a high illness record. This suggests that something else was modifying the effects of stress because individuals experiencing the same stress levels had different illness records. Kobasa proposed that a hardy personality type encourages resilience. 

Lifton et al (2006) measured hardiness in students at five US universities to see if hardiness was related to the likelihood of their completing their degree. The results showed that students scoring low in hardiness were disproportioning represented among the drop-outs, and students with a high score were most likely to complete their degree. 

Evaluation of the hardy personality:

Hardiness and negative affectivity (NA) - Some critics argue that the characteristics of the hardy personality can be more simply explained by the concept of negative affectivity (Watson and Clark, 1984). High-NA individuals are more likely to report distress and dissatisfaction, dwell more on their failures, and focus on negative aspects of themselves and their world. NA and hardiness correlate responsibly well, suggesting that 'hardy individuals' are simply those who are low on NA.

The Type A Personality

Type A Personality 

Type A personality describes a person who is involved in an incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time. Friedman and Rosenman (1959) believed the Type A individual possessed three major characteristics:

- Competitiveness and achievement striving 

- Impatience and time urgency 

- Hostility and aggressiveness 

These characteristics would lead to raised blood pressure and raised levels of stress hormones, both of which are linked to ill health, particularly the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). In contrast Type B personality relatively lacking these characteristics, being patient, relaxed, and easy going, and therefore less vulnerable to stress-related illness. 

Research on Type A personality:

Friedman and Rosenman set up the Western Collaberative Group Study in 1960. Approximately 3000 men aged 39 to 59, living in California, were examined for signs of CHD and their personalities assessed using a structured interview. The interview included questions about how they responded to everyday pressures. 

The Findings:

After 8 and a half years, twice as many Type A participants had died of cardiovascular problems. As can be seen from the table, over 12% of the experienced a heart attack, compared to just 6% of the Type Bs. Type As also had cholesterol. They were also more likely to smoke and have a family history of CHD, both of which would increase their risk.

The bodies response to stress - Chronic stress

Chronic stress - The pituitary-adrenal system 

The pituitary-adrenal system has traditionally been seen as the body's 'stress system', controlling levels of cortisol (CORT) and other important stress-related hormones. 

The role of the hypothalamus:

When stressors are perceived by the higher centres of the brain, a message passes to a small cone-shaped part of the brain, the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the control system for most of the body's hormonal systems, including those involved in the stress response. Activation of a particular region of the hypothalamus, the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) leads to the production of a chemical messenger, corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF), which is released into the bloodstream in response to the stressor.

The pituitary gland:

CRF causes the pituitary to produce and release adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH). From the pituitary, ACTH is transported in the bloodstream to its target site in the adrenal glands,located on top of the kidneys.

The adrenal cortex:

Cortisol, released by the adrenal cortex, is responsible for several stress-related effects in the body. Some of these are positive, whereas others are negative. Prolonged release of ATCH causes the adrenal cortex to increase in size in order to cope with increased cortisol production. Long-term ACTH deficiency causes it to shrink.

The bodies reponse to stress - Acute stress

Acute stress - The sympathomedullary pathway 

Immediate stressors arouse the autonomic nervous system (ANS). It is called autonomic because it governs itself. This system is necessary because some bodily functions, such as your heartbeat, might not work as well as they need to if you had to think about them. The ANS is divided into the sympathetic branch and the parasympathetic branch. The SNS arouses an animal to be ready for fight or flight, the parasympathetic branch returns the animal to a state of relaxation. A key part of this response is the sympathetic adrenal medullary system (SAM); together the SNS and SAM system make up the sympathomedullary pathway.

The SNS:

Neurons from the SNS travel to virtually every organ and gland within the body, preparing the body for the rapid action necessary when an animal is under threat. Responses include an increase in heart rate, blood pressure and cardiac output, increased pupil size and metabolic changes such as the mobilisation of fat and glycogen in the bloodstream. Noradrenaline is released by the SNS to activate these internal body organs.

The SAM system:

At the same time that the SNS is activated, the SAM system alerts the animal through the release of adrenaline into the bloodstream where it is transported rapidly throughout the body to prepare the animal for fight or flight. The SAM system is regulated by the SNS and also the adrenal medulla.

The adrenal medulla:

Each adrenal gland has two distinct zones, the adrenal medulla, in the centre of the gland and the adrenal cortex around the outside. Neurons of the SNS travel to the medulla, so that when it is activated it releases adrenaline into the bloodstream. Once in the blood, adrenaline has widespread effects on the body's physiological systems e.g. boosting the supply of oxygen and glucose to the brain and muscles, and suppressing non-emergency bodily processes such as digestion.

Cultural variations in attachment

Studies of cultural variations

Cross-cultural similarities:

Tronick et al (1992) studied an African tribe, the Efe from Zaire who live in extended family groups. The infants were looked after and even breastfed by different women but usually they slept with their own mother at night. Despite such differences in childbearing practices the infants, at six months, still showed one primary attachment.

Cross-cultural differences: 

Grossman and Grossman (1991) found that German infants tended to be classified as insecurely rather than securely attached. This may be due to different childbearing practices. German culture involves keeping some interpersonal distance between parents and children, so infants do not engage in proximity-seeking behaviours in the strange situation and thus appear to be insecurely attached.

Conclusions: The studies suggest that, despite the fact there are cultural variations in infant care arrangements, the strongest attachments are still formed with the infant's mother. The research also shows, however, that there are differences in the patterns of attachment that can be related to differences in cultural attitudes.

Meta-analysis:

Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of the findings from 32 studies of attachment behaviour. Altogether the studies examined over 2000 strange situation classifications in eight different countries, a larger sample of data then previously examined. Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg were interested to see whether there would be evidence that inter-cultural differences did exist i.e. differences between different countries/cultures. They were also interested to find out whether there were intra-cultural differences - differences in the findings from studies conducted within the same culture. With reference to variation between cultures/countries, Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg found that the differences were small. Secure attachment was the most common classification in every country. Insecure-avoidant attachment was the next most common in every country except Israel and Japan. 

With reference to variation within cultures, they found that this was 1.5 times greater than the variation between cultures. This conclusion to be drawn from this meta-analysis is that the global pattern across cultures appears to be similar to that found in the US. Secure attachment is the 'norm' - it is the most common form of attachment is 'best' for healthy social and emotional development. These cross-cultural similarities support the view that attachment is an innate and biological process.

The Strange Situation - Ainsworth and Wittig (1969)

The Strange Situation 

Ainsworth and Wittig (1969) devised the strange situation to be able to test the nature of attachment systematically. The aim was to see how infants (aged between 9 and 18 months) behave under conditions of mild stress and also novelty. Stress is created in the strange situation by the presence of a stranger and by separation from a caregiver. This tests stranger anxiety and separation anxiety respectively. The strange situation also aims to encourage exploration by placing infants in a novel situation and thus tests the secure base concept. 

Procedure 

The research room is a novel environment, a 9x9 foot square marked off into 16 squares to help in recording the infant's movements.The procedure consists of eight episodes:

1. Parent and infant play

2. Parent sits while infant plays

3. Stranger enters and talks to parent

4. Parent leaves, infant plays, stranger offers comfort if needed

5. Parent returns, greets infant, offers comfort if needed; stranger leaves

6. Parent leaves, infant alone

7. Stranger enters and offers comfort

8. Parent returns, greets infant, offers comfort

In the strange situation data is collected by a group of observers who record what the infant is doing every 15 seconds. The observer notes down which of the following behaviours is displayed and also scores the behaviour intensity on a scale of 1 to 7: (1) proximity and contact-seeking behaviours, (2) contact-maintaining behaviours, (3) proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours, (4) contact and interaction-resisting behaviours, (5) search behaviours.

Findings

Ainsworth et al (1978)  combined the data from several studies to make a total of 106 middle-class infants observed in the strange situation. The found similarities and differences in the ways that infants behaved. In terms of similarity it was noted that exploratory behaviours declined in all infants from episode 2 onwards, whereas the amount of crying increased. Proximity-seeking and contact-maintaining behaviours intensified during separation and when the stranger appeared. Contact-resisting and proximity-avoiding behaviours occurred rarely towards the caregiver prior to separation. In terms of differences, they found three main types of children, originally called A,B and C to avoid any description labels. However they are now:

- The secure attachment: refers to those who have harmonious and cooperative interactions with their caregiver. They are not likely to cry if the caregiver leaves the room. When feeling anxious they seek close bodily contact with their caregiver and are easily soothed, though they may be reluctant to leave their caregiver's side prematurely. They seek and are comfortable with social interaction and intimacy. The infant uses the caregiver as a secure base from which to explore and thus is able to function independently.

- The insecure-avoidant: (anxious) style of attachment is characterised by children who tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy with others. In the strange situation such children show little response to separation and do not seek the proximity to their caregiver on reunion.

- The insecure-resistant: (ambivalent) style charactersitics those who both seek and reject intimacy and social interaction. Such children respond to separation from their caregiver with immediate and intense distress. On reunion, such children display conflicting desires for and against contact, they may angrily resist being picked up while also trying other means to maintain proximity.

All three of Ainsworth's attachment types show relatively consistent patterns of behaviours. However re-analysis of over 200 strange situation videotapes Led Main and Solomon (1986) proposed a forth attachment type:

- The insecure-disorganised: type which is characterised by a lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour. Such infants lack a coherent strategy for dealing with the stress of separation.

Ainsworth's early studies

Ainsworth - Early Studies 

Infancy in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967)

Mary Ainsworth resisted Bowlby's ideas about attachment, preferring the more traditional learning theory. However that changed when she went to Uganda in 1954 to conduct a two-year naturalistic observation of mother-infant interactions. The participants were 26 mothers and their infants who lived in six villages surrounding Kampala. She observed that some mothers were more 'sensitive' to their infants' needs and these mothers tended to have 'securely attached' infants who cried little and seemed content to explore in the presence of their mother; secure attachment led to increasing competence and independence. Learning theory couldn't explain the importance of sensitivity in attachment, but Bowlby's evolutionary theory could.

The Baltimore study (Ainsworth et al, 1971)

When Ainsworth returned to America she continued to study mother-infant interactions but this time in an urban setting. She observed 26 mothers and their infants from birth in the Baltimore area. She and her team didn't use behaviour checklists, preferring to use shorthand to record rich details about their observations. 

The final interview with each mother and infant took place when the infant was one year old. The attachment relationship was assessed using the strange situation. She found that the mothers of the infants subsequently classified as secure has behaved most sensitively with them at home during the first three months of life. Learning theorists found this difficult to understand: they convinced that responsiveness to, for example, crying, should act as a reinforcer and increase the crying rather than Ainsworth's predictions that crying would decrease with caregiver responsiveness.

Learning theory explanation of attachment

Learning Theory 

Learning theory is put forward by behaviorists who prefer to focus their explanations solely on behaviour. It proposes that all behaviour is learned rather than inborn. When children are born they are like blank slates and everything they become can be explained in terms of experiences they have.

Behaviorists suggest that all behaviour is learned either through classical or operant conditioning.

Classical conditioning:

Classical conditioning involves learning through association. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, first described this type of learning. He was conducting research on the salivation reflex in dogs, recording how much they salivated each time they were fed. He noticed they started salivating before they were fed. The dogs salivated as soon as they heard the door open, signalling the arrival of food. The dogs had come to associate the sound of the door with food. They had learned a new stimulus response (S-R). They learned to salivate (response) when the door opened (stimulus). 

The same principles can be used to explain attachment. Food (UCS) naturally produces a sense of pleasure (UCR). The person who feeds (CS) the infant becomes associated with the food; pleasure now becomes a conditional response (CR). The association between an individual and a series of pleasure is the attachment bond.

Operant conditioning:

The second explanation used by the behaviorists is called operant conditioning. Learning also occurs when we are rewarded for doing something. Each time you do something and it results in a pleasant consequence, the behaviour is 'stamped in' or reinforced. It becomes more probable that you will repeat this behaviour in the future. If you do something and it results in an unpleasant consequence, it becomes less likely that you will repeat the behaviour. These two outcomes are called reinforcement and punishment respectively.

Validity:

Learning theory is largely based on studies with non-human animals. Human behaviour may be similar in some ways but also is different because human behaviour is more influenced by higher order thinking and emotions. Behaviorists explanations may lack validity because they present an oversimplified version of human behaviour. Behaviorists on the other hand, believe that we are actually no different from other animals. Our basic building blocks of stimulus and response and therefore it is legitimate to generalise from animal experiments to human behaviour.

Bowlby's attachment theory (1969)

Bowlby's attachment theory (1969)

John Bowlby proposed that children deprived of such a relationship might suffer permanent long-term emotional maladjustment.

Attachment is adaptive and innate:

Bowlby's theory is an evolutionary theory because it is in his view that attachment is a behavioural system that has evolved because of it's survival value and its reproductive value. According to Bowlby, children have an innate drive to become attached to a caregiver as it has long-term benefits. 

Sensitive period:

Since attachment is innate, there is likely to be a limited window for its development i.e. a critical or sensitive period. Development of all biological systems takes place most rapidly and easily during a critical period but can still take place at other times (sensitive period). Bowlby applied the concept of a sensitive period to attachment. He suggested that the second quarter of the first year is when infants are most sensitive to the developments of attachment. 

Caregiving is adaptive:

The drive to provide caregiving is also innate because it is adaptive. Infants are born with certain characteristics called 'social releasers', which elicit caregiving. Attachment is the innate behavioural system in babies; caregiving is an innate response in adults. Both provide protection and thereby enhance survival. 

A secure base:

Attachment is important for protection, and thus acts as a secure base from which a child can explore the world and a safe haven to return to when threatened. Attachment fosters independence rather than dependence.

Monotropy and hierarchy:

Bowlby believe infants have a number of attachments yet one with special importance. This bias towards one individual, is called monotropy. Infants also have other secondary attachment figures that form a hierarchy of attachments. Bowlby believed an infant is most strongly attached to the person who responds most sensitively to the infant's social releasers; this person becomes the infant's primary attachment figure.

Internal working model:

Attachment starts as the relationship between a caregiver and infant. Gradually the infant develops a model about emotional relationships: Bowlby called this the 'internal working model'. This model is a cluster of concepts about relationships and what to expect from others. 

The continuity hypothesis:

The internal working model means there is consistency between social emotional experiences and later relationships. This leads to the continuity hypothesis - the view that there is a link between the early attachment relationship and later emotional behaviour; individuals who are securely attached in infancy continue to be socially and emotionally competent, whereas insecurely attached children have more social and emotional difficulties later in childhood and adulthood.

The impact of day care

Research on the impact of day care

What is meant by 'social development'?

The aspects of a child's growth concerned with the development of sociability, where the child learns how to relate to others, and with the process of socialisation, in which the child acquires the knowledge and skills appropriate to that society.

Negative effects on social development:

Violata and Russel (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of the findings from 88 studies, concluding that regular day care for more than 20 hours per week had a negative effect on socio-emotional development, behaviour and attachment of young children.

Peer relations:

There is evidence that children in day care are less likely to be securely attached. Belsky and Rovine (1988) assessed attachment (using the strange situation) in infants who had been receiving 20 hours or more of day care per week before they were one year old. These children were more likely to be insecurely attached compared with the children at home. This would lead us to expect that children in day care are more likely to be insecurely attached and therefore less successful in peer relationships.

Positive effects on social development:

Good day care can provide plenty of social stimulation, whereas children at home, especially if they have little contact with other children, may lack such social interaction. In addition, mothers at home on their own may feel isolated and bored, finding interaction difficult. Brown and Harris (1978) found that many depressed woman claimed their low mood was due to the isolation of being at home with children.

Peer relations:

Day care exposes a child to interact with others and permits them time to develop social strategies. Field (1991) found that the amount of time spent in full-time day care was positively correlated to the number of friends children had once they went to school. Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) found that those children who attended day care could negotiate better with peers. 

Weaknesses of research on day care:

Aggression and day care: Some research indicates that children who spend more time in day care are more aggressive. Not all studies support this finding. Prodromidis et al (1995) studies Swedish first-borns, and concluded that childcare arrangements were not associated with aggression or non-compliance.

Peer relations and day care: We cannot assume that experiences in day care cause later sociability. For example, shy and unsocial children have mothers who are also shy and unsociable and such mothers prefer to stay at home to care for their children. Therefore, it is more outgoing children who attend day care, which explains why them children are more sociable.

Day care has no effects: There are many factors that can influence a child's social development. There are so many influences that it is difficult to disentangle the direct effects of day care as opposed to the effects of type of attachment between mother and child. Clarke-Stewart et al (1985) concluded that, while day-care programmes had some direct effects on development, they clearly were not operating alone.

Mediating factors:

1. Quality of day care 

2. Individual differences 

3. Child's age and number of hours

4. Applications

The working memory model - Baddley and Hitch (1974)

The Working Memory Model

Baddley and Hitch (1974) used the term 'working memory' to refer to that bit of memory that you are using when you are working on a complex task which requires you to store information as you go along. They believed that STM was not a single store, but a number of stores because if you do two things at the same time and they are both visual tasks, you perform them less well than if you do them separately. Also because if you do two things at the same time and one is visual whereas the other involves sound, then there is no interference. You do them as well simultaneously as you would do them separately.

The components of the working memory model:

- The central executive 

- The phonological loop

- Visuo-spatial sketchpad

- The episodic buffer 

What the components do:

- The central executive: This is the key component of working memory. It's function is to direct attention to particular tasks, determining at any time how 'resources' are allocated to tasks. It also has a very limited capacity; can't attend to too many things at once.

- The phonological loop: It deals with auditory information and preserves the order of information. Baddley (1986) further subdivided this loop into the phonological store (inner ear) and the articulatory process (inner voice)

- Visuo-spatial sketchpad: This is used when an individual is planning a spatial task. Visual and/or spatial information is temporarily stored here.

- Episodic buffer: Baddley added this in 2000 as he realised the model needed a general store. It is an extra storage system that has a limited capacity. The episodic buffer integrates info from the other stores, including long-term memory.

Evidence supporting the working memory model:

Evidence from brain-damaged patients

Patient SC had generally good learning abilities with the expectation of being unable to learn word pairs that were presented out loud. This suggests damage to the phonological loop (Trojano and Grossi, 1995).

Strengths and weaknesses:

+ The model explains the word-length effect and the partial STM difficulties experienced by individuals with brain damage such as KF and SC.

+ Continuing development of this model reflects the shift from seeing memory as one activity, to being able to distinguish an array of different kings of memory.

+ Includes verbal rehearsal as an optional process rather than the only means by which information is kept in immediate memory

- The central executive is too vague and doesn't really explain anything

- Critics feel the central executive is wrong and that there are probably several components.

- Evidence from brain-damaged patients: there are problems with using such evidence as you can't make before and after comparisons, so it is not clear whether changed in behaviour are caused by the damage.

Multi-store model - Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)

The multi-store model of memory

The multi-store model is an explanation of how memory processes work and was first described by Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin in 1968.

The three components that make up the multi-store model are:

1. Sensory memory (SM)

2. Short-term memory (STM)

3. Long-term memory (LTM)

How does the multi-store model work?

The sensory stores are constantly receiving information, but most receives no attention and remains in the sensory stores for a very brief period of time. If an individual's attention is focused on one of the sensory stores then the data will be transferred to STM. 

- Information held in STM is in a 'fragile state'

- It could decay relatively quickly if it isn't rehearsed.

- It will also disappear if new information enters STM pushing out the original information. 

This happens because STM has a very limited capacity of 7+/- 2 items.

Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed a direct relationship between rehearsal in STM and the strength of the long- term memory - the more the information is rehearsed, the better it is remembered. 

Evidence for the three separate memory stores:

The case study of HM (Scoville and Milner, 1957). His brain damage was caused by an operation to remove the hippocampus from both sides of hid brain to reduce the severe epilepsy he suffered. HM's personality and intellect remained intact but he could not form new long-term memories, though he could remember things from before the surgery. This suggests the hippocampus may function as a memory 'gateway' through which new memories must pass before entering permanent storage in the brain for anything that happened since.

Strengths and weaknesses of the multi-store model: 

+ Strong evidence of the three different stores

+ The model provides an account of memory in terms of both structure and process 

+ The model has clear predictions about memory which allows psychologists to conduct studies to test it

- It oversimplifies memory structure and processes 

- Evidence for a non-unitary STM came from the case study of KF (Shallice and Warrington, 1970). KF suffered brain damage which resulted in difficulty dealing with verbal info in STM but a normal ability to process visual information. This suggests that STM is not a single store. 

- Maintenance rehearsal is not the only means by which enduring long-term memories are created

- The multi-store model suggests that STM is involved before LTM. However Logie (1999) pointed out that STM actually relies on LTM and therefore cannot come 'first' as suggested by the MSM.

Validity: 

- The supporting studies also largely involve college students studying psychology (quite likely people ages 18-21 have rather different memories from people of other age groups, and students are also likely to be more than averagely intelligent - making it hard to generalize to the population) (lacks population validity)

- The studies are also largely laboratory experiments, which allows them to be highly controlled, however they tend to suffer threats to validity such as demand characteristics and experimenter bias, even when participants aren't students.

Key points to make:

Short-term memory 
encoding - Acoustic or visual
capacity - 7+/-2 items
duration - 15 - 30 seconds (short, limited duration)

Long-term memory
encoding - Semantic
capacity - Potentially unlimited
duration - Potentially unlimited