Class Notes (835,600)
Canada (509,275)
Psychology (5,217)
PSYCH 2B03 (299)

PSYCH 2B03 Lec 5

7 Pages
Unlock Document

Samuel Epstein

Lec 5 Gonna look at biological influences on personality, Start by differentiating between traits and types, Types  refer to discontinuous categories, these are discrete categories, and everyone fits into one. Traits  are more like measuring sticks; align ppl along a continuum/ metric William Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes Psychological characteristics go along with each of these physical types. Ectomorph tends to be taller skinnier, tends to have less muscle  effort put towards intellectual tasks Endomorphs  more sociable, take pleasure from bodily sources, eating/sex etc, characterized by inertia and sluggishness, Mesomorph  had muscle, were less intellectual. Consider a problem: some of you may say: if someone doesn’t have muscle they would pursue intellectual tasks, and if ppl are athletic they play sports. But it may just be stereotypes. Sheldon may be right, but for dif reasons. Maybe their parents told them to go into certain things. So skinny kids parents say “go to intellectual things” Evolutionary Psychology An approach to (not a subdiscipline of) psychology that considers species-wide universals through the lens of adaptive problems faced by ancestors Looks for universals in humans, and considers current behaviors through the lens of ”human ancestors” that were in some environment in the past Key assumptions they make: 1. The brain is a physical system, with neural ‘circuits’ (hunk of meat in the body) (brain is like a circuit board with a bunch of circuits) 2. These ‘circuits’ were shaped by selective pressures to solve problems that influenced reproductive success 3. Functional specialization  domain-specific circuits as opposed to broad neural plasticity (‘Swiss Army Knife’  each tool is specialized for a certain task) ( there is modularity, idea of modules) (specific areas of the brain that have developed to solve specific problems, as opposed to the view of the brain being broadly plastic  where one part of the brain can take over for another part of the brain etc.) [there is a lot of evidence for neural plasticity] Evolution doesn’t have a goal,  animals don’t sit around and go “so there’s fruit and we can’t eat it, so let’s make babies that eventually get a mutation that can eat it” 4. “Stone age brains in space age skulls” Humans evolve very slowly, (at very least we need 12/13 yr old cuz that’s when they can have babies)  culture evolution will always out-pace biological evolution in humans. You have to be sceptical environment we have now is very different culturally compared to our ancestors. Cultural changes occur faster than biological changes. Behaviour Genetics  Not looking to explain universals among people. Rather, they are trying to look for genetic explanations for  within species or population variability. (so evolutionary psychologist look for universals to help explain, “why all people or most people do X”) Wheras behaviour geneticists are concerned with “why is it that some people do X and some people do Y? and is there a genetic underpinning for this difference?” They also consider environmental factors, not just genetic factors. Considers hereditary and environmental factors as a source of within-species behavioural variability Key methods used: 1. Family studies Idea is : if a behavior is heritable, we should see some transmission between parent and child. So if we study the parent and then study children based on personality metric for a trait, we should be able to see some transmission from parent to child. Problem: It could be due to socialization factors  that kid has bad manners, so is the misbehavior due to some biological temperament they have or is it something that has been taught by the parents (child modeling the parent) So family studies don’t prove that there is a genetic basis, but it provides us evidence that is compatible or incompatible with the theory of genetic basis. Correlation between parent and child is a necessary factor to prove genetic basis, but it’s not a sufficient factor  there could be other explanations for this. Schizophrenia General public 1% Parents of schizophrenics  5.6 % Siblings of schizophrenics  10.1 % As a general rule, as we get less related there is less overlap in terms of schizophrenia Suggests genetic component is at work, but it doesn’t tell us how strong it is relative to environmental factors. 2. Adoption studies Look t correlation between children that have been adopted and their birth parents. So earlier the kid is taken away from biological parent, the less the environment can be a confounding variable. Adoption is not completely random, there is a selection / matching process So kid raised til age 5, and then parents die, so they try and get the id adoption parents that were like their original parents, and the problem this creates is that “we think we have taken the shared environment out of the equation but we haven’t” cuz the adoptive rents are acting just like their birth parents would have. So then some of these adoptive studies begin to look like family studies again. May have non-representative sample  ppl that put kids up for adoption, or ppl that adopt kids may or may not differ in some significant ways from people that don’t gve up their kids for adoption (wealth/health related factors) 3. Twin studies See if environmental fcators can make twins that were initally similar, different
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 2B03

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.