Notes: Health, Stress, and Social Psychology – Key Studies and Concepts

Health, psychology, and health outcomes

• Health can be affected by physiological factors and by the explanations we make for events, interactions, and outcomes in our lives.
• Self-serving explanations and optimistic patterns are linked to better health outcomes in some studies.
• Evidence across multiple studies suggests a link between cognitive/interpretive styles and longevity or recovery.

Key longitudinal and cross-sectional findings linking psychology to health

• Baseball study (press releases, 94 famous players)
• Pattern: players who made more pessimistic evaluations for losses tended to die earlier on average.
• Implication: pessimistic explanations may reflect a broader pattern of appraisal that harms health over time.
• Heart surgery recovery and optimism
• More optimistic individuals tended to recover more quickly after heart surgery than more pessimistic individuals.
• Nun longitudinal study (ages around 22 to 32 follow-up)
• Positive affect (less grumpiness/negativity) at age 22 predicted longer life by about six years on average.
• Positive individuals were about half as likely to suffer a heart attack ten years later compared with more negative peers.
• 1920 Scottish cohort study (children born in 1920; IQ measured in childhood)
• IQ and longevity: higher early-life IQ predicted longer life.
• Finding: a 15-point increase in IQ was associated with a roughly 20% increase in longevity.
• Possible explanations: higher IQ may aid better health information processing and healthier choices; causality remains complex.
• Overall takeaway: appraisal style, optimism, and cognitive factors (including IQ) relate to health and longevity.

Stress and Lazarus’ cognitive appraisal model (1960s onward)

• Core idea: stress arises when perceived resources are outweighed by demands.
• Appraisals influence stress response: how we evaluate events determines how stressful they feel.
• Primary appraisals (evaluate the source):
• Neutral: everyday events perceived as neutral.
• Positive: perceivable benefits or positive aspects.
• Negative (harm/loss): potential loss from a situation (e.g., losing marks on a quiz).
• Threat: demands are high; potential for harm to self or status; risk to self or reputation.
• Challenge: demands are high but potentially solvable; opportunity to grow.
• Secondary appraisals (resources to cope):
• Do I have the needed resources to meet the demand? Personal resources (skills, knowledge) and social resources (supportive friends/family).
• If both primary and secondary appraisals indicate insufficient resources to meet demands, stress is likely to be higher.
• Key point: stress responses depend on both the situation and the person’s appraisals and resources, which can vary over time.

Coping with stress: two broad styles

• Problem-focused coping: address the source of stress directly when possible (e.g., study for an exam, complete assignments).
• Benefits: reduces perceived stress by actively reducing the source.
• Example: procrastination as a coping pattern can be dysfunctional; as assignments pile up, procrastinators can experience increased stress and illness.
• Emotion-focused coping: regulate emotional responses when the stressor cannot be addressed directly (e.g., illness).
• Often more effective when the stressor is uncontrollable.
• Resilience as a form of coping: individuals with higher resilience handle extreme stressors (e.g., 9/11) better than less resilient individuals.
• Mixed evidence about which coping style is most effective; context (controllability of stressor) matters.
• Experimental evidence (hostage-like scenario; 57 airline employees):
• Participants assigned to problem-focused vs. emotion-focused coping strategies.
• In highly controllable or non-controllable stress contexts, emotion-focused coping tended to be more effective when the source was largely uncontrollable.

Real-world demonstrations of coping and health-related outcomes

• Two main forms of coping training in high-stress scenarios:
• Problem-focused coping training (e.g., teamwork, problem solving).
• Emotion-focused coping training (e.g., relaxation, controlled breathing).
• In simulated abduction experiments (four-day isolation with terror-like scenarios), emotion-focused coping was more effective than problem-focused coping because the situation offered little direct control.

Social psychology of mental health and environment

• Regional and migrational stress and mental health (UK):
• Incidence of schizophrenia varies by town size and region; double in some South London areas compared to Nottingham and Bristol.
• Afro-Caribbean migrants in the UK had a ninefold higher likelihood of schizophrenia compared to other parts of Britain.
• Rates in the West Indies and Britain’s migrant populations pointed away from simple country-of-origin explanations; migrant stress and environmental factors appeared central.
• Higher schizophrenia rates correlated with lower public health spending and resources, indicating environmental stressors contribute to mental health outcomes.

Group dynamics: conformity, obedience, and group processes

• Conformity: tendency to alter perceptions, opinions, or behavior to fit group norms.
• Informational influence: accepting information from others as evidence about reality when a task is difficult or ambiguous (desire to be correct).
• Normative influence: conforming to fit in with the group to avoid social disapproval or rejection, even when you may know the correct answer.
• Norms: shared beliefs within a group; promote cohesion but can drive negative outcomes if they suppress dissent.

Classic demonstrations of conformity and related concepts

• Sherif (autokinesis) and informational influence:
• In a dark room, a fixed light appears to move due to eye movements (autokinesis).
• Participants estimated movement alone or in groups; over trials, ratings converged to a common mean, illustrating informational influence.
• Asch paradigm (normative influence):
• Simple perceptual line-length task where the correct answer is obvious.
• In group settings, 75% of participants conformed at least once; over one-third of all responses were conforming.
• Manipulations:
  • Anonymous writing condition (responses written rather than spoken) reduced conformity to about a third of original levels.
  • The presence of allies who gave the correct answer dramatically reduced conformity (one ally cut conformity to ~25% of original).
  • Group size effects: with two confederates, conformity rose (e.g., around 13.6%); with three confederates, it rose further; after about eight participants, conformity plateaued.
  • Allied condition: one confederate giving the correct answer reduced conformity substantially, even though others gave incorrect answers.
• Distinction within conformity: observationally different pathways to conformity include normative conformity (driven by desire to fit in) and informational conformity (driven by a desire to be correct).

Obedience and the power of authority

• Compliance vs. obedience: compliance is responding to a direct request; obedience is complying with a direct order from an authority figure.
• Milgram's obedience studies (classic and influential):
• Setup: teacher (participant) instructed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks to a learner for wrong answers; shocks administered through a separate room with the learner in another room.
• Voltage sequence: starting at ~${45}$ volts, increasing per wrong answer up to ${450}$ volts; the learner’s protests increased in intensity.
• Key finding (initial study): about ${65 ext{%}}$ of participants administered the maximum shock (${450}$ V) despite clear distress signals from the learner.
• Other outcomes: ~${5 ext{%}}$ stopped at around ${120}$ volts; some stopped later as the learner complained; the experimenter insisted on continuing, using a firm authority stance.
• Temporal effects: the experiment showed the power of situational factors in forcing people to obey an authority even when it conflicts with personal conscience.
• Ethical concerns: the study had profound psychological impact on participants; led to many ethical restrictions in subsequent research.
• Replications and contemporary interpretations
• Burger (2009) replication up to ${150}$ volts: no significant difference from Milgram’s initial patterns; ~${82.5 ext{%}}$ continued beyond ${150}$ V in the replication vs. ~${75 ext{%}}$ in some replications.
• Modern replications in BBC contexts and other settings have reproduced the general obedience pattern, though with modified voltages and safeguards.
• Some participants believed they had administered shocks even when not happening; the belief itself had ethical implications.
• Implications for obedience research: situational factors (authority presence, proximity, ceremonial cues like lab coats) can strongly influence obedience; distance from the learner (physical or psychological) reduces perceived harm and increases compliance.

Group processes and organizational behavior

• Groupthink (Janis): pathological group dynamics where the desire for consensus overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives.
• Bay of Pigs example: Kennedy’s era, illusion of invulnerability; strong emphasis on consensus; suppression of dissent; stereotypes about strength of allies and opponents; need to maintain group cohesion; voting to evaluate counterarguments reinforced the group’s prior view.
• Consequences: poor planning, failure to consider alternatives or what would happen if plans failed.
• Other examples of groupthink pressures
• Challenger accident: o-ring failure; post-accident analyses suggested engineers warned about risk, but information failed to reach top decision-makers in a timely way; a culture of urgency and consensus suppressed critical dissent.
• Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo)
• Setup: 24 male undergraduates randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles in a mock prison in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building; planned for two weeks.
• Reality: within a week, abusive dynamics between guards and prisoners emerged; study terminated early due to escalation and ethical concerns; Zimbardo’s immersion in the role as “prison governor” blinded him to the emerging harm.
• Takeaway: powerful situational factors can shape behavior, authority dynamics, and group roles; the line between experimenter and role-occupant blur in high-arousal environments.
• Practical caution: these studies illustrate how environments and norms can shape behavior, sometimes leading to extreme outcomes; replication today is heavily restricted for ethical reasons.

Bystander effect and collective responsiveness to danger

• Kitty Genovese case (1960s) and media debate
• Reports described 38 witnesses who either did not intervene or call authorities over a period of more than half an hour, raising questions about public apathy.
• Later scrutiny highlighted uncertainties about the events; nonetheless, the case became a touchstone for bystander research.
• Latane and Darley’s bystander research
• Core finding: with multiple bystanders present, individuals are less likely to help compared with when there is a single bystander.
• Explanations include informational influence (people use others’ inaction as a cue for how to behave in ambiguous situations) and diffusion of responsibility.
• Explanations and moderating factors
• People with well-developed professional models (police, paramedics) show reduced bystander effects due to familiarity with emergency protocols.
• In ambiguous or rare extreme situations, people often look to others for cues, leading to inaction unless someone takes initiative.

Summary of the interconnections among psychology, health, and group dynamics

• Psychological appraisals, resilience, and cognitive factors relate to physical and mental health outcomes.
• Stress coping styles (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused) interact with controllability and context to influence health outcomes.
• Social context (conformity, obedience, groupthink, bystander effects) can powerfully shape behavior in everyday life and in crisis situations alike, with implications for health, safety, and social welfare.

Formulas and key statistics to remember

• Longevity and IQ relationship: a 15-point increase in IQ is associated with a ≈ 20% increase in longevity. ext{IQ} o ext{Longevity}: ext{ΔIQ}=+15
  ightarrow rac{ ext{Longevity}{ ext{new}}- ext{Longevity}{ ext{old}}}{ ext{Longevity}_{ ext{old}}} imes 100 \approx ext{+20 ext%}
• Nun study: positivity at age 22 predicted +6 years of life; those with positive appraisals were about half as likely to have a heart attack a decade later.
• UK schizophrenia regional patterns: schizophrenia incidence is doubled in some parts of South London relative to Nottingham/Bristol; Afro-Caribbean migrants to the UK have ≈ ninefold higher risk than other Brits; higher risk associated with lower public health spending.
• Milgram obedience (original study): about 65% of participants delivered the maximum shock (450 V); approximately 5% stopped at ~120 V; over 80% continued past the initial distress; the majority obeyed to the end despite learner distress.
• Burger replication (2009): no significant difference from Milgram’s pattern beyond the 150 V threshold; about 82.5% exceeded 150 V in some variants vs about 75% in other replications; ethical safeguards reduced extreme exposure.
• Asch conformity: 75% conformed at least once; more than one-third of all responses were conformist; anonymity and presence of a dissenter (ally) reduced conformity markedly (to about 27–25% of original levels depending on condition).
• Group size effects in Asch: conformity increased with more confederates up to a point; two confederates produced ~13.6% conformity; three confederates higher; plateau around eight participants.
• Bystander effect: multiple bystanders reduce likelihood of intervention; single bystander more likely to intervene than multiple bystanders.

Practical implications and ethical considerations highlighted in the lecture

• The powerful impact of situational factors on behavior underscores the caution needed when interpreting actions as purely individual choices.
• Ethical considerations in social psychology experiments have evolved; Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s studies prompted stricter protections for participants and more rigorous ethical review processes.
• Real-world relevance: understanding conformity, obedience, groupthink, and bystander effects helps explain historical events (Bay of Pigs, Challenger) and informs modern policy, organizational management, and crisis response.

Connections to prior and future topics

• Links between appraisal theory, stress, and health tie into broader health psychology and behavioral medicine.
• Conformity, obedience, and group processes provide a bridge to organizational behavior, leadership, and crisis management.
• The bystander effect connects to public health interventions and crowd safety planning.

Hypothetical scenarios and takeaways for exams

• If faced with an exam stressor, consider primary appraisal (is this threat or challenge?) and secondary appraisal (do I have the resources to cope?). Choose coping strategies accordingly (problem-focused if you can act; emotion-focused if the stressor is uncontrollable).
• In a group decision scenario, evaluate potential groupthink risks: is there unnecessary cohesion? Are dissenting opinions being heard? Is there role of leadership suppressing criticism?
• In a crisis, recognize the potential for the bystander effect: ensure clear cues for action, designate bystander roles, and provide simple commands to reduce diffusion of responsibility.

Key terms to memorize

• Appraisal: primary vs secondary; threat vs loss vs challenge; resources and social support.
• Coping: problem-focused vs emotion-focused; resilience.
• Conformity: informational vs normative influence; normative influence often involves fear of social disapproval.
• Obedience vs compliance: authority-driven behavior; Milgram’s paradigm and its ethical implications.
• Groupthink: Janis; Bay of Pigs; Challenger.
• Bystander effect: Latane & Darley; Kitty Genovese.
• Autokinesis: Sherif; information-driven convergence.
• IQ and health: longevity link; possible mechanisms (health information processing, behavior).

Quick references to remember from the transcript

• n = 94 baseball players; pessimistic loss explanations linked to earlier mortality.
• Nun study: positivity at age 22 → +6 years longevity; odds of heart attack at 32 halved for positive nuns.
• Scottish cohort: IQ at age ~11 predicts longevity; 15-point IQ increase → ≈20% longer life.
• UK schizophrenia: Afro-Caribbean migrants ≈ 9× risk; South London regions ≈ 2× risk vs other UK regions; higher public health spending associated with lower schizophrenia rates.
• Milgram: 65% reached 450 V; 5% stopped around 120 V; 80% continued beyond distress; experimenter authority cue.
• Burger replication (2009): similar obedience patterns with ethical safeguards.
• Asch: 75% conformed at least once; anonymity reduced conformity; one ally reduced conformity to ~25% of baseline; larger groups increased conformity up to plateau.
• Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment; guards’ abuse led to early termination after 1 week.
• Janis: Bay of Pigs; emphasis on consensus, invulnerability, suppression of dissent; critique as an example of groupthink.
• Challenger: groupthink dynamics; failure to properly heed warnings about O-rings.
• Bystander: Kitty Genovese; bystander effect via informational influence; professional responders less susceptible due to established models.