All right, everybody. It is now 11. Let's get started. Okay, so a few points of housekeeping.
Number one, I already posted an announcement about this, but the Eric Erickson stuff... in the PowerPoint notes is now consistent with the textbook. I was using numbers from the AP Psychology book, but someone in the back pointed out that there was a discrepancy with the book, so they should all now be consistent. Additionally, as you all should know, this Thursday is the second test, and there's a lot to memorize.
Some of you have been asking about it. I will give one gift. There's a lot to memorize, especially in the intelligence chapter, like lists of sub-abilities and things like that. It's not a huge gift, but it's all you get.
I can tell you I will not test you on this one. Thurnstone specific mental abilities. To be honest, I don't even remember those.
I don't remember hearing about them in intro class. They don't come up in agent psychology. and they have not been as influential as the other lists that are there. So the list is good in that it gives you a sense of the kinds of mental tests that were used, but I'm not going to ask, oh, is this from a fairy stone or not? So you can ignore that.
But even with that removed, there is still a lot to memorize. And so I would encourage you, if you've forgotten, to use those memorization strategies in the syllabus, the four study tips. Because there is a lot to remember. Will we be on the final? Sorry?
Will we be on the final? No, we'll be on the final either. Okay, how many of you saw the announcement I sent yesterday?
Maybe half, two-thirds? Okay, so for those of you who didn't see, it's a little bit of housekeeping. Now, I want to be clear, I did not smell anything.
I have a very weak sense of smell. but someone was apparently unhappy. Now look, as I said in the announcement, we are all animals, we all make a smell.
I was once a teenage male, and I had a weak sense of smell, so sometimes my brother had a more sensitive sense of smell, and I'd be like, bro, you smell like shit. So I'm not judging, but just a friendly reminder, shower, use deodorant, wash your clothes, that sort of thing. And as I said in the announcement, if you are male and you are thinking, no man, I don't need to shower.
I just naturally smell good. That means you need to shower the most. So, just want to make that clear. And after I said that announcement, I got an email from someone talking about in-class conversations.
So look, it's a big lecture hall. I can't really hear you. If you just whisper something funny to a friend and have a little giggle, whatever, that's fine. But if you're having extended conversations with groups of people, some have said that that is distracting. So use common sense.
Don't talk to the point where it's going to be a problem for your neighbors. Okay, any questions about the housekeeping? Okay.
So, I think that's all I wrote down. Yes. So we'll get back into the material. So remind me if I don't say so by the end of class, but I am going to tell you today what the written question will be, at least roughly.
So I'll do that at the end when we move into the review. We'll probably only have like 20 minutes for that, but make sure to remind me if I don't say so what the written question will be. We still have a fair amount to cover, so the next section in the chapter on development is on gender. So I'll run through some of the terms.
So gender identity is one's sense of being male or female. which develops over the course of early development. Gender constancy is the understanding that being male or female is a permanent part of a person.
Now, this is not commenting on whether or not that's true. This is just saying that this is a sense that kids tend to develop early on, that gender is a permanent part of someone. Sorry, gender constancy is the understanding that gender is a permanent feature of someone.
And as I said, the book is not commenting on whether that's right or wrong. It's just saying this is something that kids tend to come to believe early on. After gender constancy, one thing that develops is sex role stereotypes, which kids tend to learn from their environment, so their sense of what is appropriate for a male or female to do. So, sex role stereotypes are beliefs. They're beliefs about what is appropriate for males and females to do so.
I feel like I almost shouldn't get... I feel like even giving the examples, I could get in trouble. But, you know, like culturally, especially in the old days, it was thought that women were supposed to cook more, men were supposed to go to work.
Now those would be examples of sex role stereotypes. Sex typing is about behavior. It's about treating people differently on the basis of whether they are...
Male or female. And there are examples of studies where you find that parents treat their sons and daughters differently. So for example, they tend to be more harsh with the sons, more disciplinarian with the sons, but they tend to be less encouraging of interest and science in their daughters. So the book reports some studies that find that. Unsurprisingly, this kind of sex typing can have an effect on how boys and girls perceive themselves.
As an example, I have a video to illustrate this. Okay, so that's a good illustration of the possible effects of sex typing. And that's all I have to say about that section.
Next, we're going to talk about moral development. Now before I do so, I want to make a distinction between two different ways of studying morality. And that's the distinction between moral philosophy and moral psychology.
So, moral philosophers, sometimes called ethicists, ask conceptual questions about morality. What do we mean by moral statements? Are moral statements capable of being true or false?
That's a big debate, right? Can moral statements be objectively true or false? And if they can be objectively true, what are the right answers? So, is, I don't know, take your favorite moral debate, is capital punishment morally permissible or not? Moral psychologists generally don't ask questions like that.
They say forgettable what the right answers are to moral questions, or indeed whether there even are right answers. What we care about is what's going on in people's heads when they make... moral decisions or moral judgments.
So it's silent on whether those judgments are right or wrong. They just want to know, making moral judgments is something that people do. How do they do it?
And what are the factors that influence the ways in which they do it? So that's broadly speaking the difference. Now this is my own area of research, or one of my main ones, so my dissertation will be about moral psychology.
What I'm about to say now will not be on the task, only Colbert as well, but it's kind of a fun example. An ongoing area of research in moral psychology. How many of you are familiar with the trolley problems?
Maybe half or maybe a little less. So there's two classic versions. So there's a trolley going along a track.
It's going to hit five people. There's another track that leads to one person and conveniently You are standing near a switch that's supposed to be a switch that's supposed to be a person And if you pull the switch the trolley will Redirect, and it will hit one person instead of five. So you do nothing, five people die.
You pull the switch, it redirects, and one person dies. Show of hands, who thinks morally you should pull the switch? Who thinks you should not pull the switch? Five people.
Okay, now here's another version. So same thing, the trolley is going along, it's going to hit one person, but instead you are on a footbridge. This is kind of hard to draw. And there is a very large man standing on the edge of the footbridge.
And pretend that you are a trolley expert. I apologize for the politically incorrect nature. You can say a man with a heavy backpack, it doesn't really matter.
And pretend that you know for sure that the man or the man in conjunction with his backpack is heavy enough to stop the trolley. You're like a trolley expert. And he's kind of leaning over and all he requires is a little push and you can save the five people. So, who thinks that morally you should push the large man?
So quite a few, not as many. Who thinks morally you should not push the large man? A bunch of you did not answer, but certainly far fewer people say that you should push the large man.
Now as many of you probably have noticed, that's a little bit weird because it's the same thing. You're killing one person and saving many. The difference, of course, is that in this case you're doing it more directly.
but morally maybe that shouldn't matter. So a philosopher would argue about what the right answer is. What morally should you do?
What psychologists are interested in is why do people make these sorts of judgments? And so what you can do is you can give large batteries of questions like this, lots of different dilemmas where the question is, should you harm someone physically to save many? You can give lots of different versions of it.
And then you can correlate their answers with other types of responses. And by the way, the term for decisions like this is utilitarian. The philosophy utilitarianism says you should do whatever maximizes your ability to do.
the greatest happiness for the greatest number. So if it saves more lives or makes fewer people suffer, or what have you, that's the action you should do. Whereas, you will not be tested on these terms. This is an example of moral psychology in action. The competing view is deontology, according to which there are some actions that are intrinsically wrong.
Whether they save more lives or help people or whatever, some things are just wrong. For example, it's wrong to use someone as a means rather than treating them as an end in themselves. In this case, it's wrong to use someone as a trolley stopper. That's what a deontologist would say.
So then you give large batteries of these types of dilemmas, and you look at what are utilitarian answers correlated with. And what you find in many different studies is that they are correlated with reliance on what psychologists call System 2, which we've talked about. So people who think more slowly and reflectively tend to be more likely to endorse that, yes, you should push the large map. They've even done neuroscience studies on this, where you find that parts of the brain that are correlated with System 2 activity, or with reliance on System 2, those types of people are more likely to give utilitarian answers.
Now, I'll... How do psychologists know someone who is... Yeah, it's a good question.
So, the question is how do we know psychologists are not just taking the hypothetical not seriously? And that's hard to know. One thing that defenders of the dilemmas have said is, we're not so interested in whether people would actually do this in the real world, but just what's going on in their heads.
They're sort of competing moral evaluation processes, and we want to know how they work. But it's a good criticism that has come out. You won't be tested on it, but deontology just means some actions are intrinsically wrong, whether they help people or not. But you don't have to worry about that.
Now, one criticism, so this person brought up one criticism, but another one is that people who say, yes, you should push the large man, not only are they more reliant on system two, but there's also evidence that they are significantly more psychopathic. happen. And some people argue that this is not such a good measure of utilitarian tendencies, because there's a lot of evidence that part of what's going on is it's not so much that they care a lot about the five people, they just don't really care about pushing people.
Well, you gotta push someone to say five, whatever, that's fine. So there's some evidence for that. So one example... A cutting-edge technique, again, not to stress about, is process dissociation.
Where what you do is, you give a bunch of dilemmas, but you give two sets. One in which the harm, like pushing someone or torturing someone or whatever, is the utilitarian decision. And one set in which the harm is not the utilitarian decision.
And you give ten of each. So one example is, in the utilitarian version, the dilemma is, should you torture someone to find bombs to save people? So someone has put bombs in a building, the only way to find it in time is to torture someone.
a utilitarian should say, yeah, you should torture that person because you're going to save more lives. In the other version, it's not paint bombs. It's not real bombs, it's paint bombs.
Should you torture someone to find paint bombs? that are going to be a real nuisance. A utilitarian should say no.
That's not leading to more overall happiness, to subject someone to that. If you're a psychopath, ah, sure, whatever. It's convenient. So then you can subtract out their answers to this. And then you get a kind of more pure measure of utilitarian response.
So as I said, this is my own area. So my contribution was to set up a similar process dissociation model, but for self-sacrifice, not for dilemmas where you're harming someone else. else to maximize the greater good but ones where you have to sacrifice your own interests. No studies before had done that.
They had only focused on dilemmas where it was about sacrificing someone else. And if you're a real utilitarian you should be willing to sacrifice your own interests as well for the greater good. But I won't go into detail about my stuff. This is just kind of a fun example.
The moral psychologist that you need to know about for the test is Lawrence Kohlberg. What Lawrence Kohlberg did was he took kids and gave them moral dilemmas at various stages of development and tried to see how they responded. One of his famous examples is the Heinz Dilemma.
Heinz is a man, his wife is dying of cancer, he can't afford the medication, so to get the medication he breaks into the pharmacy, steals the medication to save his wife. And then he asks the kids, is that morally good or not? And Colbert was not really interested in what answer kids gave. He was more interested in the reasons they gave. So they say yes or no to the dilemma, but then Colbert would ask why.
Why is that the morally good or bad thing to do? And he found that there are three basic levels. Each level breaks down into two sub-levels. Don't worry too much about that. The three big levels are, I think, what you should mainly focus on.
The first one is pre-conventional. The second is just conventional. Oh, and actually, before I go through this, I just forgot, there's one funny thing I was going to show.
So, for the trolley dilemma, I have two, like, one-minute videos. One researcher did a little experiment with his two kids. He had one daughter and one son, and he wanted to see if they would respond differently. This is a very small sample size, so you could not generalize from this, but there was a very large sex difference.
And I will let the two clips speak for themselves. That kid's gonna do good things. True story about that.
I was giving this talk to the psych department, and one of the cognitive psychology professors, who was male, when I showed that clip was like, That's my boy. Anyways, like I said, small sample size, you know, you can't judge everyone. Okay, back to Colbert. The last one, postconvention.
So as with piaget, you know, you should think about the meanings of these words to help yourself remember the order. So conventional is the middle one, pre means before, so pre-conventional, and post-conventional, after conventional. The word conventional here relates to the word convention, like social convention, or social norm. So as we're going to see, The middle one is about kind of social norms, social rules, or laws towards the end of that stage.
And then pre and post come before and after that. So in the pre-conventional stage, what kids care about is how the decision affects them. So in the early part of this stage...
If I get punished for something, it's a bad action. That's what determines whether it's good or bad. And then towards the end, they also care about reward. If I do something and I get rewarded, then it's a good action.
So it's all about how the action affects the kid. In conventional morality, it's about, as I say, social conventions or social norms. Towards the beginning, it's pretty simple. It's just, if actions make other people in my group like me, then it's a good action. If they don't, it's a bad action.
And towards the end they start to care about broader norms, including laws. So what does my community or my country say is good or bad? What are the broader norms and more specifically the laws that my country endorses?
In the post-conventional stage, especially towards the end, stage six, so each level breaks down into two, so level six is stage six is the last part. What kids care about is principles. Moral principles. And it's called post-conventional because they start to accept that actually sometimes my society is wrong. In conventional morality, like, whatever other people say, that's what's right.
But in post-conventional, you go, well, no, I may endorse principles like fairness, or justice, or human rights, or whatever. And sometimes... my society is not living up to those principles. So think of someone like Martin Luther King, right? In the United States in the 50s and 60s there was racial segregation, particularly in the South, that was written into the law.
Many people in the society endorsed that, but people in the civil rights movement said, look, we know that's the law, we know that's what our society endorses, but we think that's wrong based on principles like fairness, justice, etc. So those are the basic moral levels. Any questions? Say again, sir? What did you say pre-conventional was?
In pre-conventional, it's all about how the action affects you. So if you're a kid, if you get punished for doing something, well, that's a bad action. If you get rewarded, then it's a good action.
Other questions? Yes? Were laws in the post-conventional or pre-conventional?
So technically laws are in the conventional towards the end. In the early part of the post-conventional, they start to care about the principles that the laws presuppose, but don't worry about that. The main thing you should know about post-conventional is that it's moral principles that matter.
And crucially, sometimes those principles can contradict the laws. Sometimes your society is just wrong based on principles that you endorse. Yes, so, now I'm not going to test you on the ages. Standardly, pre-conventional is 0 to 9-ish. Conventional is like 10 to 15, and post-conventional is like 16 plus.
But there's a graph in the book that shows that it's quite variable when kids reach these stages, but that's kind of the rough estimate. But again, you will not be tested on that. Other questions about Colbert?
Okay. So this was, as I say, serious work, but there were some criticisms. Two ones that you should know. This model was criticized for having culture bias.
The key problem that both issues relate to, all of the subjects in Colbrook's studies were boys from Western countries. So first line of criticism has to do with culture. It's sometimes argued that the fact that this is the final stage reflects an individualistic conception of psychology.
So as you may remember from 104 Cultures are generally divided into those that are individualistic, to greater or lesser degrees, and those that are collectivistic. In individualistic cultures, individual uniqueness is what's important. In collectivistic cultures, abiding by societal norms is what's important.
Living up to your family's expectations or your culture's expectations. And the fact that this is the final stage where you transcend your culture's norms may reflect a bias towards an individualistic way of thinking about things. And with regard to gender, I forget if this person's in the key terms or not.
If she is, then worry about her. If not, then don't worry about the name. But Carol Gilligan. pointed out, rightly, that all of Kohlberg's subjects were boys, and she did some preliminary work finding that girls were less likely to emphasize principles like justice and fairness, these kind of... abstract, absolute principles, and instead, we're more likely to be concerned with relationships and context.
So if there's a moral dilemma, it doesn't really matter about these principles. What matters is, you know, do I know the person? What's the background of my relationship with this person? And so on.
As the book says, generally speaking, the meta-analyses have not borne that out. I would say the consensus now is that, at least with the kinds of measures that Kohlberg was using, men and women do not appear to develop different... vis-a-vis morality.
Now with regard to the trolley dilemmas, actually, boys are more likely to say, yeah, push the large man in front of the trolley, but with the kinds of measures that Colbert was using, it's widely thought that Gilligan was not right. But she was right to say, look, let's at least check. Let's make sure that this isn't just true of boys. And that is all I have to say about moral psychology and moral development.
Any questions about any of that? Okay. So now we kind of have to run through some terms. A lot of them I don't have too much to say about, but we'll go through them.
So there's a section on adolescence and puberty. So most of these terms are probably review, but primary sex characteristics. Those are sex characteristics that have directly to do with reproduction.
So basically the genitals and the related anatomy. The stuff that's directly related to making a new human. Secondary sex characteristics are all the other physical differences between boys and girls.
One weird one is breasts. That one is listed as a secondary sex characteristic. And you might think, well that kind of relates to making a baby, but technically that is listed. as a secondary one. So wider hips in girls, breasts, larger muscles and more body hair on males, those would all be secondary sex characteristics.
So ones that are not directly related to conception, let's say. So those are the sexual changes that occur during puberty. There are also neural changes. The last parts of the brain to fully develop are the limbic system, which is the emotion centers of the brain.
And then even later than that, the frontal lobes. I'm sure many of you have heard of this. The frontal lobes are involved in self-control, long-term planning, controlling your impulses, and that sort of thing. I'm sure many of you have heard that these take longer to develop in males, and that is true.
A little behind. So, if you're noticing that young men are stupid, it's okay, just give them time. I think I told this story to my 104 class, but when I was 7 or 8, I had noticed a pattern. Like I said, I was always noticing patterns. The pattern I noticed was that boys were more likely to do violent or stupid things.
I just asked my dad, like, why is that? Why is that the pattern? And he said, well, that's because of testosterone. I said, well, what's testosterone?
And he wanted to explain it in a way that an 8-year-old boy could understand. So he said, basically, testosterone is a chemical that eats boys'brains. For a long time, that's actually what I thought testosterone was.
Now, that's not quite right, but there is, as it turns out, a delay in the frontal lobe. Yes? Is there any sort of, like, psych sort of reasoning as to why boys develop later on? That's a good question.
I don't know, actually. It's partly myelination, but a lot of it is just losing connections, actually. So a lot of neural growth is growing more connections than you need, and then becoming more efficient, so losing the connections that you don't need.
I think myelination happens more earlier, but I don't remember the exact time. So that's at the physical level. At the psychological level, there are also some things that are characteristic of adolescence.
One important one is adolescent egocentrism. Ego-centrism here does not mean the same thing that it does for Piaget. Adolescent ego-centrism is thinking that you are the centre of the world.
Not just in the sense that you're really important, but that everyone's looking at you. And that what you're going through is so unique and important and attention-grabbing. So one example of this is a personal fable that would fall under the umbrella of egocentrism.
Having a personal fable... having an over inflated sense of how unique your experience is so you know when you're young and your first boyfriend girlfriend or your first big crush you know they'll say like no one's ever been in love this much like this is you inflate how important it is which is a great way of course to make yourself miserable which is a feature of adolescence yeah you can as you get older you'll realize you're not that the other one that that has been widely studied is the imaginary audience. And there is probably a kind of ebb-side thing going on here, which is when you're an adolescent, you're trying to learn the social norms in your community.
I should say first of all, it's it. Having an imaginary audience is thinking that everyone is always looking at you. Everyone's always paying attention to you.
And probably the reason for that is, again, you're trying to learn the norms of your community, and if you're constantly thinking that you're under judgment, you're probably going to try harder to abide by what people want you to do. And this can be very stressful when you're an adolescent, you know, thinking that everyone's looking at you. But the great relief of adulthood that's coming soon for many of you is the realization that no one gives a shit about you.
You can just relax, okay? You don't matter that much. This is a very- positive thing I'm telling you.
They actually have done concrete studies on this. I forget the exact details, but they once did a study where they had people wear obscene t-shirts. It was something really bad, like a picture of Hitler's face, or something really out there.
and they had to wear them to work and then they had to guess how many co-workers noticed the shirt and then they asked how many all the co-workers, like how many of you noticed the shirt and people consistently overestimated how many people looked at their shirt most people did not notice and this was like an extreme case so for ordinary little whatevers most people don't notice and don't care Bully their crushes? Oh, that's just ineptitude. I mean, that's the classic. I mean, we'll talk about reaction formation.
So she asks, why do young boys and girls bully or pick on their crushes? I mean, I'm not an expert in that, but the Freudian answer would be reaction formation, which is displaying the behavior that's the opposite of what you really think. So we'll come back to that, and we'll talk about that in Chapter 14, I think. Other questions about...
You'll remember that for Piaget, the last stage of development is formal operational, when you can think kind of logically and scientifically. Some have argued that there should be another stage, which is post-formal, which is sort of similar to the notion of wisdom that we saw in Chapter 9. Post-formal thinking involves the recognition that there are conflicting values, there are conflicting points of view, and that decisions usually involve trade-offs between those points of view. Adolescents are often very idealistic.
This is the absolute right or wrong, and that's the last of it. As you get older, you tend to realize that there are conflicting values, and that life involves trade-offs. There's a quote I really like from the economist Thomas Sowell, that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. That's a very post-formal way of thinking about things.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. Because, as I say, things involve conflicting values. Okay, the next section is on intellectual changes over the course of development, especially after the 20s.
I believe I mentioned this in answer to someone's question last time. The book is a little confusing because it has two graphs. One is based on cross-sectional data, and one is based on longitudinal data.
So cross-sectional, remember, from the beginning of the chapters, when you take, whatever, a group of 20-year-olds, a group of 30-year-olds, a group of 40-year-olds, and so on until 80-year-olds. and compare, in this case, their IQ scores on various subtests, and you compare them all at the same time. Longitudinal would be you take a group of 20-year-olds and follow them, like not physically follow them, but you follow up with them until they're 80. and the problem with doing a cross-sectional study in this case actually are his little tests from chapter 10 why would that be a problem what's something that's relevant to why 80 year olds might be lower IQ than 20 year olds The Flynn effect, yes. So they might be left to have lower IQs because they've gotten older, or it can partly be due to the fact that people in general have been getting lower IQ squares as the decades have gone on.
But even if you use longitudinal data, you do find some changes. So I'll show a graph of that. And I would just use this one. This one's more clear than the ones in the book. This one is in the PowerPoint notes.
So there's three things here. There's crystallized intelligence, processing speed, and fluid intelligence, which is sort of related to speed. So crystallized intelligence stays high or even goes up slightly. We find that in some studies. But fluid intelligence tends to start going down.
Depends on the study, but maybe 20s or 30s. And speed starts going down more rapidly around that. As well now after like 78, okay, everything goes down including crystallized intelligence And you do often find, as it happens, that famous scientists tend to make their biggest discoveries when they're in their 20s.
They're kind of the most creative, they think the quickest, their minds are the most agile. So for example, Isaac Newton, a lot of his big discoveries were in his 20s. He invented calculus in a few months when he was 24, which makes me feel like a profound failure.
The book then goes back to Erickson's stages, specifically... Sorry. The identity versus role confusion stage.
When adolescents are trying to figure out who they are. And he identifies four sub-stages, four stages that fall under the umbrella of identity versus role confusion. The first one is identity diffusion, which is basically not caring. Who am I? I don't care.
I just want to play video games. So you don't even think about questions like, what are my values, what do I care about, or who am I? The next is foreclosure.
So that's when you start to realize that you have a decision to make. You have to figure out who you are and what your values are. But you default to what your parents'and your culture's values are.
You don't do the work of figuring out, do I really want to accept that or not? You just go, eh, I'll just believe what my parents believe. I'll just accept what my parents accept. And then the next is moratorium, and that's when you actually have the crisis. You realize, no, I'm not sure if I believe what my parents believe, and then you go through a so-called identity crisis, which apparently is a term actually that Erikson coined.
And then the last stage is identity achievement, where you actually do decide on your values. Nothing too fancy there, but any questions for clarification on those four steps? The second one was called foreclosure.
That's where you just default to the values of your parents or your culture. Fourth one is identity achievement. So identity diffusion, you don't give a shit.
Foreclosure, you default to your parents'values. Moratorium, you have a crisis. And identity achievement, you arrive at your identity and your values.
Okay, next, let me see how much time we have. Okay, we're doing pretty well. It's on marriage and family.
So it starts off by noting that families are increasingly diverse in terms of the types of family structures. Same-sex couples are increasingly adopting. There are also more single-parent families.
As an aside, many social scientists have been interested in whether these different family structures have different effects on child development. In the case of single parent households, there is evidence this can have negative associations. It can be associated with negative developmental outcomes. But interestingly enough, there is no such evidence for same-sex couples.
There's quite a large number of studies now finding that kids raised in same-sex, so two fathers or two mothers, like kids who are adopted, fare no better or worse than kids raised with a mom and a dad. Quite a large body of evidence now. Now in the case of marriage, more specifically, what are the psychological effects of being married?
Is it a good decision? This is the eternal debate, of course. And to present one side of this, I have the philosopher Kramer from Seinfeld.
Based... no, I'm sorry. Okay, so the book does have a discussion of this, and despite what Kramer says, there's a large body of evidence finding that, in fact, married people live longer, are healthier, and happier. It seems to have long-term positive effects, or at least it's correlated with it. There's the old, you know, correlation doesn't mean causation issue, but if you look strictly at the correlations, they tend to be positive.
Now if you zoom in on marriages and look at them over the course of the time, from the beginning to the end, they seem to follow a U-shape. So, and there's something that happens in the middle that may explain this. So, at the beginning of a honeymoon phase, happiness is very high. People are very happy. And then in the middle, something happens.
Can anyone guess what it is? Children. Yes, so children, marital satisfaction, it doesn't go like plummet, it's still good to be married, but does tend to go down. And then as you grow older together, the kids maybe move out, happiness goes back up.
stereotype called like the empty nest syndrome which is that parents are depressed when the kids rooms are empty and they're all alone but as it's been said the only symptom of empty nests the only symptom of an empty nest is more smiling as it turns out I'm not saying don't have kids, though. Someone asked that. So, what I mean is like moment-to-moment happiness. As I'm going to say in a later chapter, it depends how you define happiness. I should add this.
There's two ways in positive psychology of measuring happiness. happens one is you have like a use of a cell phone or at least have these other things like this didn't get like big did you have you get asked like how happy are you right now and then that happens like a ten random times during the day and then you just average over the course of a week or something the other is how satisfied are you with your life overall right Kids decrease the first kind, but increase the second kind. I'm not going to test you on this, this is for a later chapter, but I heard someone say, oh, we're going to have kids. What this means is, if you have kids, moment to moment you're like, ugh, I'm not very happy with this freaking kid, you know.
But how happy are you with your life overall? Well, no, I feel like my life has meaning. You know, that's what parents tend to say.
But I should be clear, the U shape is actually more specifically just about marital satisfaction, not about happiness per se. So how happy are you with your relationship? And there is a U curve. Oh, that's a good question. I should know the answer to that, but I don't.
So for the test, so the person asked, is there the same U-shape for marital satisfaction for people who don't have kids? I do not know the answer to that. Someone can Google Scholar. The book goes over a debate about whether there is such a thing as a midlife crisis. Don't worry too much about it.
So if you define it in terms of neuroticism, so neuroticism is something we'll see more in the personality chapter. Neuroticism is essentially instability of your mood, especially negative moods. So how much does your mood change?
And that stays constant through the lifespan. It's not the case that there's a spike in sensitivity to negative emotion in the middle age years. However, one thing you could cite in favor of something like a midlife crisis is there's not just a U-curve for marital satisfaction, there's also a U-curve for life satisfaction. This is independent of marriage.
This is just, you ask people, how happy are you with your life overall? And again, it's highest in the 20s and in old age. So there's a U shape there as well.
So enjoy your 20s while you can. And after that, just hold out for being older. Okay, so we're almost done.
There's just one more thing we have to cover, which is death and dying. There's not as much here, but the big thing that you should know for this section is the five stages of grief. How many of you have heard of the five stages of grief?
It's pretty commonly known. This was first put forward as an explanation for how people go through death, but it has been extrapolated to apply to other kinds of grief, like someone you know dying, losing a job, or what have you. And the five stages are denial. So you refuse, let's just say dying is the example, you refuse to accept that you're dying. Next is anger.
So you're mad about your circumstance and about how unfair it is. And then bargaining, where you try to negotiate your way out of dying. Maybe you... Maybe an atheist, but you pray to God. And he was like, hey, can you cut me some slack here?
And I'm like, if you let me live, I will read the Bible every day. And then depression, where the sadness sets in, and finally acceptance, where you have a more positive disposition, you accept your fate. To help these five stick in your memory, I have a video from Robot Chicken, of a giraffe going through the five stages.
Okay. Hopefully that helps you remember the order. Okay, good, so we're right at noon. That is all the content I have to give you for test number two. So, test is on Thursday.
So, while I remember, I'll go through what the written question will be, and then I'll throw it open for any questions that any of you have, with either the intelligence chapter or the development chapter. So the written question will come from the section on reliability and validity in chapter 10. So make sure you are familiar with all the different types of reliability and validity and that you can apply them to an example. In the question, I will just say, you know, a psychologist develops a scale to measure... It won't be intelligence.
It will be some other psychological construct, not intelligence. And I will say, explain how these types of reliability and validity would apply in the case of this test. Any questions about what the written will look like?
So not favor or don't favor, just what would it mean for this test to have these types of reliability or validity? I'm not going to ask you to comment on whether it would or wouldn't be. Other questions? Yes.
How many months is it? So it's out of five, so all of them are going to be out of five, the written. It's worth 3% of your grade.
That's what each of the written ones are. It's the same length as test one, 40 multiple choice questions, 20 from chapter 10, 20 from chapter 12, and then 5 marks for the written. As I said last time, if you take the full hour and 20 minutes, that means you should study more because test 3 will be 60 multiple choice and 1 written. And then test 4 is the final with 70 multiple choice and no written. So keep that in mind.
You should aim to be done within an hour, which most of you are. Other questions about the format of the test? Yep. I still can't hear you. What?
Yes. As before, I will choose the types of reliability and validity. There will be five.
Yep. Yes. And as before, one sentence each.
Be nice to the TA. So I'm going to be more clear this time with the example, and I'll tell you this in advance. For one of the five, I will require the sentence to have an example.
For the other four, you can just say conceptually what the type of validity or liability would be. But one of them, I'll say that the sentence should include an example. So I'll be...
Because last time there were some questions about that. This time it will be very clear. Okay.
Any questions about any content in chapters 10 or 12? Yes. What does menarche mean?
Oh yeah, that's first period. I forget how to pronounce it, but menarche, menarche, I forget. Whatever, first period for a few minutes. Yeah? Yep, good question, so good to know.
So I mentioned it in passing today, but cross-sectional means you get a group or groups of people at various ages at the same time and compare them. So, like I said earlier, if you want to look at how intelligence changes over the lifespan, you would compare 10 years. ...year-olds and 80-year-olds like today. The problem with that is you can't really know if the changes are due to aging or if they're due to when the people in question grew up, because they grew up at different times.
With longitudinal, you take one group and you follow them as they age. Sequential is, don't worry, that one won't be on the test. That's just multiple longitudinal studies. Don't worry about that.
Yep? Will we have to calculate IQ? Yes, you should be ready to calculate IQ using either ratio IQ or deviation IQ. So I explained in class how to calculate those two.
You should know how those equations work. Other questions? Anything in intelligence or development?
Yes. To what extent does the age of the survey have to do with the age of the survey? I would say know the ages.
Now that I've made it consistent, know the ages. The PowerPoint does and the book should be the same. So know the ages. Yeah.
They're pretty similar. I'll be nice. Know the adult ones.
Nudge, nudge, hint, hint. Okay, other questions? Yeah. Yes, the question was, should we know the baby attachment styles or the adult ones? You should know how Ainsworth's model works, but the specific names of the attachment styles, I'm going to say know the adult ones.
I mean, they're pretty similar. If you want to memorize names, memorize the adulteries. Any other questions?
Okay, before I let you go, I'm going to say try and be here early on Thursday. That'll make things easier. If I didn't get to your question, you can come talk to me now or during office hours or post the questions on course collections.
Make sure you bring a pencil and student ID. See you all on Thursday.