Shackman Psyc210 Module05 TraitsAndStates Part1

PSYC 612 M06, R04: How are traits (T&P) and states related?

Nuts & Bolts Plan for TodayCumulative review and check-in

Lecture (selections from Matthews chapter)

Take-home critical thinking questions

Time permitting, cover material on the unconscious mind from Module 4How are the readings going, 1? I carefully read the assigned papersI generally skim the papersI do not read the papers

How are the readings going, 2? The assigned papers were easy to understand; it required little effort to identify the aims, key results, and implicationsPapers were understandable; it required moderate effortPapers were challenging to understand; required substantial time and effortPapers were too advanced; unable to identify the aims, key results, and implications

How are the readings going, 3? Im okI would benefit from some additional instruction on how to decipher the readings

Hows It Going?I am quite comfortable with the class and expectationsIm okI am uncomfortable with the class &/or unclear on the expectations; I am unsure about the best way forward &/or apprehensive about my ability to earn a satisfactory grade

Which features of modern culture tend to magnify the impact of individual differences in T&P, such as C/SC?LongevityRisk exposure (fast food nation)The relatively high prevalance of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuseAll of the above

The Five Factor Model (FFM) is predicated on the lexical hypothesis, the assumption that the deep structure of T&P is embedded in our natural language, waiting to be discovered. What are some concerns with this assumption?Meaningful aspects of T&P may not be captured by single word adjectives (e.g., relationships or processes). Key aspects of T&P might be too complex for single words, requiring phrases, sentences, or even whole paragraphs of wordsNo guarantee that words (natural language) will permit the expression of scientifically crucial aspects of personalityBoth

The FFM assumes that responses obtained from untrained lay individuals (e.g., military personnel, undergraduates) are an adequate means of uncovering the core dimensions of personality. What are potential concern with this assumption?Lay individuals are sloppy and inconsistent in their use of language (e.g. aggressive, critical) Untrained raters may not have sufficiently sophisticated mental models of T&PUntrained judges are more likely to be biased or even to lieAll of the above

Tomarken argued that biological measures of T&P need to beReliable: Show adequate internal consistency reliabilityReliable: Show adequate test-retest stability (trait-like)Reliable and Valid

Construct validity (functional significance) entails the assessment of a measures _______________ and ___________________ .Sensitivity and specificity, effectively the reverse and forward inferencePut simply, a measure should be very sensitive to the target construct and no other9Establishing the construct validity of a measure requires that we demonstrate that it is Sensitive to some process, such as fearSpecific to some process (fear & no other process)Sensitive and Specific

The FFM was derived using factor analysis. Factor analysis is a useful technique forReducing the dimensionality of a datasetCompressing dataIdentifying a relatively small number of factors that describe a datasetCreating new questionnairesAll of the above

Can factor analysis be used to objectively discover the nature of T&P?YesNo

In terms of discovery, potential limitations of factor analysis includeGarbage In/Garbage Out; Dependent on the kinds of inputs; Cant identify factors that are not sampled or represented in the dataSubjective decisions about the number of factors to retain (degree of acceptable lossiness); Splitter or lumperRequires the analyst to decide at the outset whether dimensions are independent or correlated (i.e., needs to pick the rotation technique)

13The FFM is largely based on factor analyses of adjectives. Was the pool of wordsrepresentative of the English languageselected on the basis of preconceived notions about the importance and understandability of particular words?

Were the methods that were used to reduce the ~400,000 words comprising the unabridged dictionary to a more manageable pool of adjectives (personality descriptors)replicable, objective, and atheoreticalsubjective, idiosyncratic, and theoretically biased?

The key take home point from Blocks critique is that the FFM Is a bunch of hooeyReflects the fundamental nature of T&PIs a convenient short-hand, a sometimes useful fiction that begs for additional research

In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walt Mischel argued that the primary determinant of moods, thoughts, and behavior isThe situation, because T&P at most predict outcomes r = .30 (9% variance)T&PBoth

But contemporary science suggests that moods, thoughts, and behavior are determined byThe situationT&PBoth

Trait-like individual differences in T&P are strongly predictive ofAcademic performance (above & beyond IQ)Marital stability & satisfactionMental & physical health and wellbeing (morbidity)Death (mortality)All of the above

Correlation and variance explained: If two variables are correlated R = .50, the amount of variance accounted for is:0.50 * 0.50 = .25 = 25%0.50 / 0.50 = 1 = 100%Sqrt(.50) = .7071 = 70%

Longitudinal research studiesProvide strong evidence that antecedants (childhood) predict consequences (adulthood), a precondition for establishing causationComplex, costly, and time-consumingCan not prove causation, because they do not manipulate the putative cause of the outcomeAll of the above

Moffitt et al PNAS: What is C/SC?Do things by the book; follow rulesPrefer order and neatnessPlanful; not impulsiveAble to delay gratification; self-disciplined (marshmallow test)Focused; not easily distractedAll of the above

Which features of modern culture tend to magnify the impact of individual differences in T&P, such as C/SC?LongevityRisk exposure (fast food nation)The relatively high prevalance of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuseAll of the above

Moffitt et al PNAS: Key results: Childhood C/SC predicted mid-lifeComposite measure of healthComposite measure of personal wealthIncarceration, criminal conviction and other indices of public safetyAll of the above

Moffitt et al PNAS: Key results: Which is true?Kids with low C/SC are prone to smoke, become parents, and drop out of school as teensTeen snares explain the negative adult outcomes experienced by many kids with low C/SCTeen snares are only part of the story. Might make more sense to target the root cause (low childhood C/SC) for intevention, rather than teen symptomsAll of the above

PSYC 210:

How are traits (T&P) and states related?

AJ Shackman12 February 2015Todays Conceptual RoadmapHow are Traits (trait-like individual differences in T&P) related to States?

What is the role of the context, environment, or what Mischel called the situation?

Can Traits influence States in the absence of trait-relevant cues or stimuli? Students?Can N/NE influence neg mood in the absence of threat?Can E/PE influence pos mood in the absence of reward?

Todays Conceptual RoadmapHow are Traits (trait-like individual differences in T&P) related to States?









Mathews Chapter 4

Starting Point: What are traits?Trait-like (stable) individual differences in emotional and cognitive biases that first emerge early in life (but continue to evolve for many years) that account for consistency in behavior, inner experience (moods, emotions, thoughts across time and contexts

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correlation)

Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE, and C/SC)Starting Point: What are traits?Trait-like (stable) individual differences in emotional and cognitive biases that first emerge early in life (but continue to evolve for many years) that account for consistency in behavior, inner experience (moods, emotions, thoughts across time and contexts


Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE, and C/SC)Students?Starting Point: What are traits?Trait-like (stable) individual differences in emotional and cognitive biases that first emerge early in life (but continue to evolve for many years) that account for consistency in behavior, inner experience (moods, emotions, thoughts across time and contexts






Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE, and C/SC)Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticFleeson JPSP 2001, 2009Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticTraditional measures give the impression that each of us can be defined as a single, relatively fixed score

E.g., Alex is a 5 out of 7 on E/PE

But recent experience sampling study indicates that T&P is better conceptualized as a stable distribution of scores with marked variation from moment to moment

E.g., an individual with a mean E/PE score of 5 and a SD of 1, would show scores of

3 about 11% of the time4 about 28% of the time5 about 43% of the time, and 6 about 11% of the time

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticTraditional measures give the impression that each of us can be defined as a single, relatively fixed score


But recent research indicates that T&P is better conceptualized as a distribution of scores with marked variation from moment to moment



Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticTraditional measures give the impression that each of us can be defined as a single, relatively fixed score


But recent work indicates that T&P is better conceptualized as a distribution of scores with marked variation from moment to moment



Distribution of Big 5 scores over 2 weeks of experience sampling (7-point scale). 5 assessments per day. Total: 70 surveys.Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticTraditional measures give the impression that each of us can be defined as a single, relatively fixed score


But recent work indicates that T&P is better conceptualized as a distribution of scores with marked variation from moment to moment

E.g., an individual with a mean E/PE score of 5 and a SD of 1, might show scores of

3 about 11% of the time4 about 28% of the time5 about 43% of the time, and 6 about 11% of the timeFleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Distribution of Big 5 scores over 2 weeks of experience sampling (7-point scale). 5 assessments per day. Total: 70 surveys.Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticOn a day to day basis, Extraverts quite regularly act introverted, and Introverts often act extraverted.

A key difference between Extraverts and Introverts is not that they do different things, not in the frequency of being in the tails of the distributions, but in the frequencies with which they enact midrange extraverted and introverted behaviors.

In daily life, Extraverts act in a moderately extraverted way about 5%10% more often than Introverts and vice versaFleeson JPSP 2001, 2009Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticOn a day to day basis, Extraverts quite regularly act introverted, and Introverts often act extraverted.

A key difference between Extraverts and Introverts is not that they do different things, but in the frequencies with which they engage in mildly extraverted and introverted behaviors.

In daily life, Extraverts act in a moderately extraverted way about 5%10% more often than Introverts and vice versaFleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Starting Point: Traits are probabilisticOn a day to day basis, Extraverts quite regularly act introverted, and Introverts often act extraverted.

A key difference between Extraverts and Introverts is not that they do different things, but in the frequencies with which they engage in mildly extraverted and introverted behaviors.

Extraverts act in a mildly extraverted way about 5%10% more often than Introverts and vice versaFleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

How are traits relatedto emotional statesTraits & States: 2 IdeasTraits are simply the average of states

States reflect an interaction between traits (biases to react in a particular way) and trait-relevant cues and contexts (e.g., punishments and rewards)Some evidenceSome possible limitations

Traits & States: 2 IdeasTraits are simply the average of fleeting states

States reflect an interaction between Traits (biases to react in a particular way) and Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., punishments and rewards)

This Reactive view of traits is the dominant perspective in the field todayTraits & States: 2 IdeasTraits are simply the average of fleeting states


This Reactive view of traits is the dominant perspective in the field todayTraits & States: 2 IdeasTraits are simply the average of fleeting states


This Reactive view of traits is the dominant perspective in the field todayThe simplest possible modelTraits are simply an average of states

E.g., queried a subject repeatedly, day in and day out, for a month

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 200950The simplest possible modelTraits are simply an average of states



Fleeson JPSP 2001, 200951The simplest possible modelTraits are simply an average of states



Fleeson JPSP 2001, 200952The simplest possible modelThis model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states come from or why individuals differ in their characteristic intensity

And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predispositions that occur in the absence of discernible states

E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to Avoid situations associated with potential threat or danger

Engage in vigilance (checking and risk assessment behaviors)

Worry and ruminate

Do so even when threat is absent

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)Fleeson JPSP 2001, 200953The simplest possible modelThis model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states come from or why individuals differ in their characteristic intensity

And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predispositions that occur in the absence of discernible moods or statesat baseline



Worry and ruminate


Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 198454The simplest possible modelThis model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states come from or why individuals differ in their characteristic intensity




Worry and ruminate


Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)Students an example?Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 198455The simplest possible modelThis model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states come from or why individuals differ in their characteristic intensity


E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to Avoid situations associated with potential threat or danger even when feeling relatively relaxed and calm


Worry and ruminate even when threat is absent

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 198456

What if youre alwayson high alert, actively scanning for danger, even when the chance of threat is remote

Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)Probabilistically alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts

E.g., A more dispositionally anxious individual will experience more frequent or more intense anxiety in response to threat or danger

Another way to think about this is that traits are simply the average of many states

It goes without saying that EVERYONE will experience some anxiety from time to time, the difference lies in the frequency or the intensity

From this interactive perspective, Traits x Trait-Relevant Cues States Covert Thoughts and Overt Behaviors

STUDENTS What are some potential problems with this perspective??

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States

58Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)Probabilistically alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts







Traits are cortical [or] subcorticaldispositions having the capacity to gate or guide specific phasic reactions.

It is only the phasic aspect that is visible; the tonic is carried somehow in the still mysterious realm of neurodynamic structure.

Gordon Allport (Amer Psychol 1966)

59Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)Probabilistically alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts






Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States60Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)Probabilistically alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts







61Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States

Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 198462In short

TRAITSTRAIT-RELEVANTCUES & CONTEXTSSTATESHans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and individual differences

Proposed that individuals with high N/NE have overreactive limbic systems

The consequence, according to Eysenck, was that neurotics have stronger sensitivity to signals of punishment or negative events and react more intensely

Eysenck maintained that this oversensitivity is biologically determined

Traits x Contexts = States

Suls & Martin J Pers 200565Hans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and individual differences













Eysenck maintained that this oversensitivity is biologically determined and, as we shall see later in the semester, other prominent theorists have adopted and refined this logic (e.g., Jerry Kagan and the amygdala)


Suls & Martin J Pers 200568Not just N/NE

Hannah & RewardTraits x Contexts = States

Hi E/PELo E/PEBigger Peak Reactivity

Hannah & RewardVentral Striatum (REW)More Reactive in ExtravertsTraits x Contexts = StatesStudents:

What kinds of evidence does Mathews present in support of the Trait x Contexts = States Model?Traits x Contexts = States: 2 Kinds of Evidence

e.g., individual differences in E/PE are positively correlated with momentary positive affect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)73Traits x Contexts = States: #1 Naturalistic Mood

e.g., individual differences in E/PE are positively correlated with momentary positive affect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)74Traits x Contexts = States: #1 Naturalistic Mood

e.g., individual differences in E/PE are positively correlated with momentary positive affect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)Pos AffNeg Aff75Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Pos AffNeg Aff76Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Pos AffNeg Aff77Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental MoodLarsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199178Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199179Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199180Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199181Students:

What are some potential limitations of this model?Traits Impact Mood When Relevant Cues are AbsentLarsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199183Traits Impact Mood When Relevant Cues are Absent

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 199184N/NE Predicts Negative Emotion at Baseline Meta-analysis: Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 198485N/NE Predicts Negative Emotion at BaselineMeta-analysis: Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

Individuals with high levels of N/NE report high levels of momentary Anxiety and Negative Affect (NA) at baseline86Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesT&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emotional States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Motivation and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering rewards (positive affect) and punishments (negative affect)

E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking stimuli

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 201387Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesT&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emotional States & Moods. T&P also alters:









Emotion regulation and recovery, the rapidity with which individuals return to emotional baseline following the termination of a challenge

E.g., after a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may stay up











Anticipatory affect, emotional states elicited by future events

E.g., anticipating a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may become anxious






Anticipatory affect, emotional states elicited by future events

E.g., anticipating a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may become anxious

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 201393As Borkovec notesThe Anxious Phenotype & Anticipatory AffectIt is quite likely that the summed [amount of] fear [for] any given individual to clear and imminent physical or psychological threat

95The Anxious Phenotype & Anticipatory AffectIt is quite likely that the summed [amount of] fear [for] any given individual to clear and imminent physical or psychological threat

lags far behind the summed amount of fear in response to the anticipation of such events[Worry!]

Borkovec 1985

96

Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesCommon denominator = differences in the absence of overt rewards/punishment

Suggests that the interactive model (traits x contexts states behavior) is incomplete

X97

Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesCommon denominator = differences in the absence of overt rewards/punishment

Suggests that the interactive model (traits x contexts states) is incomplete

X98Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesAppears that T&P alters momentary feelings, thoughts, and actions throughseveral different mechanisms, including biases in:

emotional reactivity to rewards and punishments

instrumental behaviors (e.g., avoidance, approach)

emotion regulation

anticipatory affect

99Traits x Contexts = States: Some IssuesAppears that T&P alters momentary feelings, thoughts, and actions throughseveral different mechanisms, including biases in:

emotional reactivity to rewards and punishments

instrumental behaviors (e.g., avoidance, approach)

emotion regulation

anticipatory affect

100It was once thought that Traits x Contexts States Measureable Behaviors

Consistent with this, Traits and Emotion States are moderately correlated, and this correlation is relatively specific to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Negative Film Clips and Neuroticism, Positive Film Clips and Extraversion)

But this does not account for important differences in emotional states in situations where there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emotionally-charged cues.

Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emotional reactivity model is true but incomplete

Other mechanisms, such as instrumental behaviors (eg avoidance/approach)emotion regulation/recoveryanticipatory emotion/motivationdreams, hopes, and worries

Key Take Home PointsIt was once thought that Traits x Contexts Emotional States

Consistent with this, Traits and Emotion States are moderately correlated, and this correlation is relatively specific to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Negative Film Clips and Neuroticism, Positive Film Clips and Extraversion)





Consistent with this, Traits and Emotional States are moderately correlated, and this correlation is relatively specific to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Negative Film Clips and Neuroticism, Positive Film Clips and Extraversion)













Key Take Home PointsCritical Thinking QuestionsPlease pick 2Critical Thinking Questions1. Describe a real or hypothetical example of T&P influencing thoughts, feelings, or actions in the absence of motivationally-significant cueswhen the protagonist of your real-life or hypothetical tale is home, sitting comfortably on the couch, so to speak

Critical Thinking Questions2. Briefly describe one or more mechanisms that could account for the enduring influence of traits on states (emotional, cognitive) in the absence of a clear and imminent reward or punishment

Critical Thinking Questions3. In class, I focused on N/NE and E/PE, how might these ideas (i.e., traits in the absence of trait-relevant cues or challenges) apply to C/SC?Critical Thinking Questions4. Briefly commentAre Traits and States categorically different or do they instead reflect a continuous spectrum?

For example, might it make sense to conceptualize individual differences as something like a planet (or an onion), featuring

A CORE: relatively fixed and immutable, slow to change

PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on intermediate time scales (more fleeting than traits, more enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even mercurial dynamicsCritical Thinking Questions4. Briefly commentAre Traits and States categorically different or do they instead reflect a continuous spectrum?
















AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even mercurial dynamicsCritical Thinking Questions5. New technology makes it possible to efficiently detect and code emotional expressions on the face from digital photographs or video footage.

Watch the video @ http://www.wsj.com/articles/startups-see-your-face-unmask-your-emotions-1422472398

Briefly comment on how we might harness this technology for understanding the relationship between emotional traits and states.

Critical Thinking Questions5. New technology makes it possible to efficiently detect and code emotional expressions on the face from digital photographs or video footage.

Watch the video @ http://www.wsj.com/articles/startups-see-your-face-unmask-your-emotions-1422472398

Briefly comment on how we might harness this technology for understanding the relationship between emotional traits and states.

The End

Check time

If there is time, talk about unconscious material from Module 4Behavior is normally guided by both conscious and pre-conscious processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #1: Automatic attitudes and marriageBehavior is normally guided by both conscious and pre-conscious processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #1: Automatic attitudes and marriage

For decades, social psychological theories have posited that the automatic processescaptured by implicit measures have implications for social outcomes. Yet few studies have demonstrated any long-term implications of automatic processes, and some scholars have begun to question the relevance and even the validity of these theories.

135 newlywed couplescompleted an Explicit measure of their conscious attitudes toward their relationship and an Implicit measure of their automatic attitudes toward their partner. They then reported their marital satisfactionevery 6 months for the next 4 years.

For decades, social psychological theories have posited that the automatic processescaptured by implicit measures have implications for social outcomes. Yet few studies have demonstrated any long-term implications of automatic processes, and some scholars have begun to question the relevance and even the validity of these theories.

135 newlywed couplescompleted an Explicit measure of their conscious attitudes toward their relationship and an Implicit measure of their automatic attitudes toward their partner. They then reported their marital satisfactionevery 6 months for the next 4 years.

Measuring Implicit Attitudes

Indicate as quickly as possible the valence of positive & negative words after seeing photographs of their partner

An index of spouses automatic attitudes was formed by subtracting RT for positive words from RT for negative words

Higher scores = more positive attitudes

evilawesomeMeasuring Implicit Attitudes

Indicate as quickly as possible the valence of positive & negative words after seeing photographs of their partner

An index of spouses automatic attitudes was formed by subtracting RT for positive words from RT for negative words

Higher scores = more positive attitudes

evilawesomeImplicit Attitude Toward SpouseLovers500200300Haters200500-300

evilawesome

We found no correlation between spouses automatic and conscious attitudesSs were unaware of their automaticattitudes.

Further, spouses automatic attitudes, not their conscious ones, predicted changesin their marital satisfaction

spouses with more positive automatic attitudes were less likely to experience declines in marital satisfaction over time.

We found no correlation between spouses automatic and conscious attitudesSs were unaware of their automaticattitudes.

Further, spouses automatic attitudes, not their conscious ones, predicted changesin their marital satisfaction

spouses with more positive automatic attitudes were less likely to experience declines in marital satisfaction over time.

Behavior is normally guided by both conscious and pre-conscious processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #2: Lesions can dissociate these 2 kinds of processes

Safety (CS-)Danger (CS+)Assessed Emotional Learning (SCR) and Cognitive Learning (contigency awareness)

Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)

Measure of the skins electrical conductance

Varies depending on the amount of moisture

Sweat! Controlled by the SNS

Indication of psychological or physiological arousal

Widely used measure of emotional arousal

ConditionableMaryland Neuroimaging CenterPhils SCR to anelectric shock

Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)

Measure of the skins electrical conductance

Varies depending on the amount of moisture

Sweat! Controlled by the SNS

Indication of psychological or physiological arousal

Widely used measure of emotional arousal

Conditionable (learned emotional reaction)Maryland Neuroimaging CenterPhils SCR to anelectric shock

Results

Amygdala Lesions- block the emotional component of fear learning (SCR), but not contingency awarenessHippocampal Lesions- Opposite patternImplication- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are independent and reflect distinct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions- block the emotional component of fear learning (SCR), but not contingency awarenessHippocampal Lesions- Opposite patternImplication- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are independent and reflect distinct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions- block the emotional component of fear learning (SCR), but not contingency awarenessHippocampal Lesions- Opposite patterni.e., a double dissociationImplication- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are independent and reflect distinct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions- block the emotional component of fear learning (SCR), but not contingency awarenessHippocampal Lesions- Opposite patterni.e., a double dissociationImplication- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are independent and reflect distinct neural circuitry

ImplicationBehavior is normally guided by both conscious and pre-conscious processes (lie outside of awareness)

Understanding aspects of T&P that lie outside of conscious awarenessmandates the use of implicit behavioral or physiological measures (e.g. SCR/GSR)End of 2 Examples MaterialThe EndTo consider adding in future terms

Extra Slides: 3rd ExampleBehavior is normally guided by both conscious and pre-conscious processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #3: Unconscious emotional processes can guide actual behavior

ADBCIowa Gambling Task Ss pick 1 card at a time with the aim of maximizing rewardBAD Decks (A/B): big payoff with unpredictable big lossesGOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

Iowa Gambling Task Ss pick 1 card at a time with the aim of maximizing rewardBAD Decks (A/B): big payoff with unpredictable big lossesGOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

ADBC

Iowa Gambling Task Ss pick 1 card at a time with the aim of maximizing rewardBAD Decks (A/B): big payoff with unpredictable big lossesGOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

ADBCBADBADGOODGOOD

00000

ADBC

00000

ADBC

Shackman Psyc210 Module05 TraitsAndStates Part1

Documents