1 / 32

David Pincus, Ph.D.

One Bad Apple: Experimental Effects of Individual Conflict on Social Resilience. David Pincus, Ph.D. Chapman University, Orange CA.

pearliee
Télécharger la présentation

David Pincus, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. One Bad Apple: Experimental Effects of Individual Conflict on Social Resilience David Pincus, Ph.D. Chapman University, Orange CA Pincus, D. (2014). One bad apple: Experimental effects of psychological conflict on social resilience. Interface Focus, 4, 20014003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2014.0003

  2. Interpersonal Process Theories Festinger Adler Lewin Bales Stack-Sullivan Leary Yalom Minuchin Baumrind

  3. Control, Closeness, Conflict are Key Emergent Relationship Parameters • Flexibility and Balance are healthy • Psychological and Social Conflict Spread across Scales • Structure is key • Deeper theoretical framework? • Individual in the group, group in the individual? • Integration of Scientific and Practical Approaches? Broad Conclusions and Longstanding Questions

  4. Emergent Properties: Relational Structures System Components: Information Flows Self-organization and Social Emergence (Pincus, 2001)

  5. Modified Interpersonal Circumplex: Closeness, Conflict and Control (Pincus & Guastello, 2005) (Pincus et al., 2008) Control Closeness Closeness Control

  6. Social Psycho Emergent Biopsychosocial Resilience Bio Resilience: “the meta-flexibility of the system: the ability to respond to a perturbation by either becoming rigid and robust, or flexible and fluid without becoming stuck or falling apart respectively.” (Pincus & Metten, 2010, p. 359)

  7. The Experimental Tests Discussion 1 Discussion 2 Discussion 3 Discussion 4 • Undergrad strangers in get-to-know-you-task • Four discussions with self-report breaks • Experimental induction of internal conflict • Experimental induction of conflict resolution • H1: Equivalent complexity across baselines • H2a: Complexity with conflict induction • H2b: Complexity with conflict resolution Conflict Induction Resolution Induction

  8. Internal Conflict Induction 76-100, HIGH: Individuals within this range are perceived by others as closed-minded and stubborn about their opinions or beliefs. They are frequently described by others as “rigid,” or “combative.” They tend to have histories of relationships characterized by ongoing conflict and turmoil. Alternatively, they may tend to be rejected by others (particularly those scoring in the medium range). 0-24, LOW: Individuals within this range are perceived by others as distant, aloof and cold. They are frequently described by others as “loners,” as “isolated,” or as “unfriendly.” They tend to have a history of difficulty making and maintaining close, satisfying relationships with others. While they may not be openly rejected, they tend not to be accepted readily in social situations.

  9. Experimental Design • Time-series nested within aggregated combined single-case experimental-correlation design • Orbital Decomposition • Six groups, 24 Discussions • One induction and replication • Control group • 2, 3 and 4 Members Induced • Induction level manipulation check using 5-point scale • Resolution based on observational score (1-5; 100% reliability) • > 1 minute discussion, + attitudes, + affect, suspicion about feedback • Dependent variable = Entropy in turn-taking patterns • Coding Scheme: Mean k = .76; Range = .62-.91 B-D-B-D-A-D-A-C-D-B-D-C-A-C-D-C-D-C-A

  10. Experiment-wise Results Good results: Groups 1, 3, 4 and partially 6

  11. Experiment-wise Correlational Results(string length = 6) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a) Standardized by group; b) Sum of induced members attenuated by induction and resolution scores.

  12. Results for Clinicians More conflict Less Conflict

  13. Group 1 - IPL’s and Fractal Dimension Discussion 2 R2 = .99 Df = 2.57 SE = .0159 Discussion 1 R2 = .98 Df = 2.86 SE = .0257 • One (100%) induction; 25% resolution Discussion 3 R2 = .96 Df = 1.93 SE = .0233 Discussion 4 R2 = .90 Df = 1.78 SE = .0333

  14. Group 1 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F = 1.85 p = .1747 F = 10.54 p = .0013 F = 1.03 p = .3111 F = 6.14 p = .0138

  15. Group 1 Summary 5.34* 5.24* 4.96** 4.94** 2.86 2.57 1.93 1.78

  16. Group 3 - IPL’s and Df Discussion 2 R2 = .94 Df = 1.39 SE = .0179 Discussion 1 R2 = .91 Df = 1.41 SE = .0256 • Control Group; No inductions Discussion 3 R2 = .88 Df = 1.20 SE = .0257 Discussion 4 R2 = .91 Df = 1.39 SE = .0437

  17. Group 3 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F = 48.83 p = .0000 F = 7.43 p = .0068 F = 1.06 p = .3034 F = 0.01 p = .9204

  18. Group 3 Summary 4.49 4.36 4.42 4.20 1.41 1.39 1.20 1.39

  19. Group 2 - IPL’s and Df Discussion 2 R2 = .86 Df = 1.07 SE = .0254 Discussion 1 R2 = .94 Df = 2.03 SE = .0292 • One (75%) induction; No resolution Discussion 3 R2 = .94 Df = 1.40 SE = .0120 Discussion 4 R2 = .97 Df = 1.81 SE = .0154

  20. Group 2 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F = 2.760 p = .0977 F = 5.281 p = .0222 F = 34.11 p = .0000 F = .1011 p = .7507

  21. Group 2 Summary 4.96* 4.75* 4.24** 4.26** 2.03 1.81 1.40 1.07

  22. Group 6 - IPL’s and Df Discussion 2 R2 = .97 Df = 2.33 SE = .0224 Discussion 1 R2 = .96 Df = 2.51 SE = .0217 • Four (50%) inductions; 100% resolution Discussion 3 R2 = .96 Df = 2.17 SE = .0272 Discussion 4 R2 = .95 Df = 2.19 SE = .0284

  23. Group 6 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F =.0714 p =.7896 . F = 19.70 p = .0000 F = 1.520 p = .2186 F = 6.152 p = ..0137

  24. Group 6 Summary 5.28* 5.16*z 5.13z 5.16*z 2.03 1.81 1.40 1.07

  25. Group 5 - IPL’s and Df Discussion 2 R2 = .98 Df = 2.54 SE = .0211 Discussion 1 R2 = .95 Df = 1.79 SE = .0247 • One (50%), two (25%) inductions; No resolution Discussion 3 R2 = .98 Df = 2.44 SE = .0219 Discussion 4 R2 = .98 Df = 2.05 SE = .0150

  26. Group 5 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F =4.428 p =.0362 . F = .8189 p = .3662 F = 5.709 p = .0175 F = 5.929 p = .0155

  27. Group 5 Summary 4.28** 5.22** 5.17** 4.88* 2.54 2.44 1.79 2.05

  28. Group 4 - IPL’s and Df Discussion 2 R2 = .95 Df = 2.14 SE = .0273 Discussion 1 R2 = .96 Df = 1.89 SE = .0221 • Two (100%) inductions; 100 % resolution Discussion 3 R2 = .90 Df = 1.48 SE = .0279 Discussion 4 R2 = .94 Df = 1.95 SE = .0283

  29. Group 4 Shannon Entropy Anova Values for each pattern F = 4.655 p = .0318 F = 22.29 p = .0000 F = 2.646 p = .1049 F = 4.033 p = .0455

  30. Group 4 Summary 5.12* 5.08* 4.93* 4.32** 2.14 1.89 1.95 1.48

  31. Primary Limitations and Considerations • Imperfect results • Generalizability? • Coding scheme • Choices for experimental control (e.g., N = 308) • Event-based sampling • Mean-variance correlations in Df & Hs

  32. Conclusions • Small groups are self-organizing systems displaying fractal recurrence structure in turn-taking patterns • Internal conflict can spill up to decrease interpersonal complexity (the group is in the member) • Conflict and conflict resolution has structural significance, plays a key role within psychosocial resilience

More Related