Michele K. Surbey

Adaptive significance of low levels of self-deception and cooperation in

depression

Shelby Johanson and Cindy Ung

Humans are self-aware and have theory of mind

This also means we are more aware of our flaws and the unpleasant aspects of our world

Self-awareness and processes like self-deception and repression have been subject to natural selection

Introduction

Gur and Sackeim (1979) – when two contradictory beliefs are held at different levels of consciousness.

Mele (1997) – Avoidance of unpleasant information, or unintentionally and unconsciously viewing things in an unrealistically positive way

Trivers (1976, 1985) – Active misrepresentation of reality to conscious mind, or biased information flow within an individual

Kurzban and Aktipis (2007) – Self-deception is an outcome of preferentially choosing overly positive representations or biased perceptions of reality instead of more realistic depictionsSCI – Social Cognitive Interface – System that stores

representations relevant to social interactions

What is Self-Deception?

Surbey’s definition: Preferential accessing of overly positive or idealized representations or perceptions of the self, others, and the world

What is Self-Deception?

Taylor and Brown (1988) – Keeps threatening thoughts out of consciousness and facilitates continued performance, motivation, and optimism in adverse conditions

Trivers (1985) - Arms race between ability to deceive and detecting deceptionSurbey – may have evolved other evolutionary

functions

Why Do We Have Self-Deception?

Abramson and Martin (1981) and Sackeim (1983) - People who are depressed lack the normal capacity to self-deceive

This lack of capacity to self-deceive in depressed people is compatible with many evolutionary theories of depression

Surbey mentions five areas of evolutionary theories for depression

Self Deception and Depression

Bowlby (1969) – Depression is a reaction to a loss of a significant relationship

Klinger (1975), Nesse (2000) - Adaptive means to conserve resources/energy in uncontrollable adverse stimuli

Welling (2003) - Provide time-out so their cognitive maps, etc. can be updated

Theories of Depression: Loss of Resources

Price (1967) – Depression is a mechanism used by losers of social competitions

Gilbert (2006) – Depression is for reducing further challenges to dominant individuals

Theories of Depression: Dominance Hierarchies

Allen and Badcock (2003) – Depression serves to reduce social exclusion

Reduces the risks of social exclusion in individuals that perceive that they have low social status or who are already experiencing social rejection

Theories of Depression:Social Exclusion

Hagen (2002,2003) – Depression is a means of bargaining and advertises an individual’s neediness

Theories of Depresion: Group Living

Intrusive and repetitive thoughts about problems in social relationships are typical of depression

Watson and Andrews (2002) and Andrews and Thomson (2009) – Ruminations signify an increased focus on problem solving

Depression is a way of attending, regulating, maintaining, and resolving social relationships with others who might not have the same fitness interests as you

Theories of Depression: Maintaining Social Relationships

Self-deception facilitates initiation and maintenance of reciprocal altruism

People more likely to exhibit cooperative behaviors if they can’t access their own and others’ selfish motives and assume a norm of reciprocity

Surbey and McNally (1997) – Higher self-deception associated with greater cooperation in Prisoner’s Dilemma game

Self-Deception and Cooperation

Good model for reciprocal altruism and cooperation

Two individuals choose to cooperate or defect

Payoffs depend on choice made by competitor

One trial versus multiple trials

How can a cooperative relationship be initiated if, on any first or single trial, it is always better to defect?

Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

Why? Because you would have to access positively biased representations of yourself and of other people

High levels of SD predicted cooperation on PD

Answer: Self-Deception

1. Retest relationship between depression and SD using two measures of SD

2. Test relationship between SD and conscious feelings associated with symptoms of depression

3. Replicate previous findings of association between SD and cooperation and examine the role of attributional styles and dispositional optimism

4. Examine relationship between depression and cooperation in social dilemmas based on PD game.

Goals

Induced negative mood or depression related with reduced cooperation in other types of games

Results: depressed individuals in power position more likely to defect on cooperating partner than ‘normal’ individuals

Problems: didn’t allow assessment of individuals with depression to cooperate or defect in mixed-motive social dilemmas

Previous Studies

80 Undergraduates (23 male, 53 female).Queensland Australia17-47 years old (M=22.01)European descentMiddle classCourse credit awarded

MethodsParticipants

Self Deception QuestionnairePaulhus Deception ScalesAttributional Style QuestioningBeck Depression Inventory IILife Orientation TestPrisoner’s dilemma game vignettes

MethodsMeasures

Self Deception Questionnaire (SDQ) 20 psychologically threatening, but generally true

statements. Denial indicates self deception – taps tendency to deny

unflattering or negative informationPaulhus Deception Scales (PDS)

40 questions measuring socially desirable responses SDE: Subconscious attempt to look more agreeable

Secondary measure of self deception IM: Conscious tendency to manage reputation

Control for impression management

MethodsMeasures – Self deception

Beck Depression Inventory II 21 questions indicating severity of depression.

Attributional Style Questioning Causal interpretation of 12 situations. Locus of control, stability, globility, and personal control. 7 styles

The important ones are OP (Optimism), SN (Stable Negative), and the three negative in general (CONEG: associated with learned helplessness)

Used composite of 3 negative scores as depression measure. Life Orientation Test

Measure of optimism and pessimism

MethodsMeasures - Mood

Prisoner’s dilemma game vignettes4 hypothetical situations

Relevant to undergrads.Match payoffs in classic game of prisoner’s

dilemma.T>R>P>S

“How would you respond in this situation?”

MethodsMeasures - Cooperation

Demographic variables were not significantly related with psychological measures Older participants had lower LPESSSES positively correlated with SE

Results – Intercorrelations and Preliminary Analyses

Participants with high levels of depressive symptomology had reduced levels of SD

SDQ and SDE modestly but significantly and positively intercorrelated

Higher PDS scores correlated with lower depression scores

Higher scores on IM associated with reduced levels of depression

Results – Relationships Among Measures of SD, IM, and Depressive Symptoms

High levels of negative attributional styles and low levels of positive biased cognitive styles associated with increased depressive symptomology

Depressed individual didn’t show reduced overall internal locus of control or personal control

Several attributional styles and dispositional optimism significantly related to depression

Two measures of SD correlated with some but not all attributional styles and with LOPT

Results – SD, IM, Attributional Styles, Dispositional optimism and Pessimism, and Depression

Reduced levels of each measure of SD along with SN independently predict greater depressive symptomology

After accounting for these three measures, the remaining attributional styles did not contribute to the model

Results – Unique Identifiers of Depression

No significant correlations between measures of SD and intention to cooperate

Higher self deceivers more likely to intend to cooperate than low self deceivers

Results – SD, IM, and Cooperating in PD Games

Low SN and LPESS and high OP and IM related with higher intentions to cooperate

Attributional optimism only significant predictor – accounts for 19% of variation

Results – Attributional Styles, Dispositional Optimism and Cooperation

Results – Unique Identifiers of Cooperation

Scores on BDI-II ranged from 0-38 out of a possible 63.

Average score: 11.64±8.30‘Minimal’ depression = 13 ‘Severe’ depression = 29

Tendency to cooperate: 4.86±0.77

Participants with more severe symptoms of depression showed reduced cooperation

Results – Depressive Symptomology and Cooperation

Reduced levels of self deception in depression.

High self deceivers. . . Feel less pain. Are less likely to see things that don’t “fit.”

Card test

Individuals with depressive symptoms are. . . more capable of detecting cheaters (more

skeptical). more logical when confronted with anomalies,

negative situations, and violations of social rules.

DiscussionRelated Findings

SDQ and SDE Overlapping tests, yet only moderately correlated and

predicted BDI independently. Self enhancement (in SDE) vs. denial (SDQ). Conscious management of image (IM) correlated with

SDE and SDQ, but did not predict BDI.Attributional styles

Correlation between SDQ/SDE and attributional styles.Negative styles and depressive symptoms.

Stable Negative style and self deception explain 37% of variance in BDI-II scores.

DiscussionNotes on the measures

Lack of self deception seems to underlie the negative thinking of depressed individuals.Stable Negative (bad things are caused by

things that won’t go away) also important.These factors may make individuals more

vulnerable to depression.Self deception may be eroded by life

events. Adaptive in that denial only works for so long.

DiscussionAttributional styles - interpretations

High self deceivers were more likely to cooperate in a game of prisoner’s dilemma. Only with SDQ, not SDE Possibly related to different aspects that they measure.

Denial of possible negative responses by other person?When the stats got fancy. . .

Neither SDQ not IM predicted cooperation! The best predictors were

Optimism/belief that they had some control of the situation. IM was close to significant.

Possibly related to “the illusion of control.”

DiscussionCooperation

Hypothesis“. . .moderate tendency to self deceive is

functional, promoting both mental health and reasonable levels of cooperation.”

Support“The finding that mild depressive

symptomology was related to both low levels of self-deception and cooperation supports this view.”

DiscussionReturn to Hypothesis

Depression is maladaptive and results from low self deception (Nettle, 2004)

Depression is adaptive - maintains social relationsBargaining tool (Hagen, 1999, 2002, 2003)

Results show that depressed people do withhold cooperation, supporting this view.

Depression and defection are related: methods of dealing with adverse situations by withdrawing cooperation.

DiscussionInterpretations

People will be more forgiving of defection if the defector is depressed.Non depressed, high power individuals were

more forgiving than depressed, high power individuals when playing with a depressed partner (Hokanson et al., 1980).

Repeated exposure to negative events may reduce self deception and increase depression and defection.

DiscussionPredictions

Therapies adjusting thought to fit reality may not be effective.Instead, not thinking about

negative thoughts, even if they match reality, may be a better strategy.

Even so, if social problems are not resolved, the treatment will not have lasting effectiveness.

DiscussionClinical Implications

Cooperation of a normal individual in a game of prisoner’s dilemma if the defecting player is seen as depressed.

An experimental study, to tease out the causations they are hinting at.

Play with actual people? Test hypothesis in realistic situation

Future Studies

Undergraduate subject pool.Methods consisted of a huge stack of tests.Their conclusions and ponderings do not

always appropriately follow their findings.Depression includes lack of activity. Does

cooperation fall into this?

Critiques