Sei sulla pagina 1di 150

Nuts

& Bolts Plan for Today


Cumula4ve review and check-in
Lecture (selec4ons from Ma@hews chapter)
Take-home cri4cal thinking ques4ons
Time permiEng, cover material on the
unconscious mind from Module 4

How are the readings going, 1?


a. I carefully read the assigned
papers
b. I generally skim the papers
c. I do not read the papers
0%
pe
rs

ot
re
ad

th

im
th
sk
I d

o
n

ly
I g
en
er
al

e p
a

e
pa
p

ig.
..
ss
e
a
th
re
ad
re
fu
lly
I c
a

0%
er
s

0%

How are the readings going, 2?

ad
v

an
c

ng
.

er
e
to
o

le
ng
i

pe
rs
w
Pa

Pa

pe
rs
w

er
e
ch

al

er
st

an

...

er
...

er
e
un
d

er
s w

pe
rs
w

pa
p

Pa

ne
d
sig
e a
s
Th

e.
.

a. The assigned papers were easy to


understand; it required li<le eort to
iden>fy the aims, key results, and
implica>ons
b. Papers were understandable; it
required moderate eort
c. Papers were challenging to
understand; required substan>al >me
and eort
0% 0% 0% 0%
d. Papers were too advanced; unable to
iden>fy the aims, key results, and
implica>ons

How are the readings going, 3?

0%

0%

I w

ou
l

d
be
ne
fit

fro
m
so
m

...

Im
o
k

A. Im ok
B. I would benet from
some addi>onal
instruc>on on how
to decipher the
readings

Hows It Going?

bl
co
m
fo
r ta

co

I a

m
u
n

ite
m
q
u
I a

0%
t.
.

Im
o
k

0%

m
fo
rta

bl
e
w

i..

0%

e
wi
th

A. I am quite comfortable
with the class and
expecta>ons
B. Im ok
C. I am uncomfortable with
the class &/or unclear on
the expecta>ons; I am
unsure about the best
way forward &/or
apprehensive about my
ability to earn a
sa>sfactory grade

Which features of modern culture tend to magnify the


impact of individual dierences in T&P, such as C/SC?

ti v

ov
e

0%

he
ab
of
t

Al
l

el
y

hi
g

h
p

re
va
l

n
.
oo
d

Th

e r
el
a

ur
e
(fa
s
ex
po
s

0%
...

..

0%

t f

Lo
n

ge
vit
y

0%

Ri
sk

A. Longevity
B. Risk exposure (fast
food na>on)
C. The rela>vely high
prevalance of
psychiatric disorders,
such as depression,
anxiety, and
substance abuse
D. All of the above

The Five Factor Model (FFM) is predicated on the lexical


hypothesis, the assump4on that the deep structure of T&P is
embedded in our natural language, wai4ng to be discovered.
What are some concerns with this assump4on?

No
gu

ar
an
te
e
th

at
w

.
o
f .
.
ec
ts
sp
ng
fu
l a
ea
ni

0%
h

0%
or
ds
...

0%

Bo
t

A. Meaningful aspects of T&P may not


be captured by single word
adjec>ves (e.g., rela>onships or
processes). Key aspects of T&P might
be too complex for single words,
requiring phrases, sentences, or
even whole paragraphs of words
B. No guarantee that words (natural
language) will permit the expression
of scien>cally crucial aspects of
personality
C. Both

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 poten4al concern with this assump4on?

ne
d
ju
ra
i

Un
t

ov
e

0%

he
ab

of
t

Al
l

dg
es
a

rs
m
te

ne
d
ra
ra
i

Un
t

0%

re
m
or
e.
..

ay
n
ot

y..
.
pp
ar
e s
lo
ua
ls

0%
...

0%

vid

D.

di

C.

in

B.

Lay individuals are sloppy and


inconsistent in their use of language
(e.g. aggressive, cri>cal)
Untrained raters may not have
suciently sophis>cated mental
models of T&P
Untrained judges are more likely to
be biased or even to lie
All of the above

La
y

A.

Tomarken argued that biological


measures of T&P need to be
A. Reliable: Show adequate
internal consistency
reliability
B. Reliable: Show adequate
test-retest stability (trait-
like)
C. Reliable and Valid

0%

0%
lid
d
Va
e a
n

bl
Re
lia

ow
e:
Sh
bl
Re
lia

Re
lia

bl

e:
Sh

ow

ad

ad

eq
ua
t

eq
ua
t

...

...

0%

Establishing the construct validity


of a measure requires that we
demonstrate that it is

0%

Se
ns
it

iv

e a
n

d
Sp

s (
...

ec
ifi
c

0%

m
e p
ro
ce
s

to
so
Sp
ec
ifi
c

iv

e t
o

so

m
e
p

ro
ce
ss

...

0%

Se
ns
it

A. Sensi4ve to some
process, such as fear
B. Specic to some
process (fear & no
other process)
C. Sensi4ve and
Specic

The FFM was derived using factor


analysis. Factor analysis is a useful
technique for

Cr
ea
t

ov
e

0%

Al
l

of
t

he
ab

ire
s

0%

nn
a

es
t

io

sm
...
q
u

in
g n

ew

g d

re
la

sin
ify

in
g a

pr
es
Id
en
t

0%

tiv
el
y

at

i..
na
l
io
Co
m

m
en
s
e d
i
g t
h
cin

0%
a

0%

Re
du

A. Reducing the
dimensionality of a
dataset
B. Compressing data
C. Iden>fying a rela>vely
small number of factors
that describe a dataset
D. Crea>ng new
ques>onnaires
E. All of the above

Can factor analysis be used to


objec4vely discover the nature of
T&P?

A. Yes
B. No

0%
No

Ye
s

0%

In terms of discovery, poten4al


limita4ons of factor analysis include

0%
o
...

bo

...

ys
na
l
he
a
ire
s t

je
ct
iv

Re
qu

e d
ec
is

io
n

t t

s a

ge
O
ut
rb
a
Su
b

rb
ag
e I
n

Ga

0%
..

0%

/G
a

A. Garbage In/Garbage Out;


Dependent on the kinds of inputs;
Cant iden>fy factors that are not
sampled or represented in the
data
B. Subjec>ve decisions about the
number of factors to retain
(degree of acceptable
lossiness); Spli<er or lumper
C. Requires the analyst to decide at
the outset whether dimensions
are independent or correlated
(i.e., needs to pick the rota>on
technique)

The FFM is largely based on factor analyses of adjec4ves. Was


the pool of words

on

the
ba

sis
of p
...

0%

ele
cte
d

tive
of
the
En
gl..
.

0%

pre
sen
ta

A. representa>ve of
the English language
B. selected on the
basis of
preconceived
no>ons about the
importance and
understandability of
par>cular words?

Were the methods that were used to reduce the ~400,000


words comprising the unabridged dic4onary to a more
manageable pool of adjec4ves (personality descriptors)

A. replicable,
objec>ve, and
atheore>cal
B. subjec>ve,
idiosyncra>c, and
theore>cally
biased?

0%

yn
cr
at
os
di
bj
ec
tiv
e,
i
su

re
pl

ica

bl

e,
o
bj
ec
t

ive
, a

ic,

..
.

nd
...

0%

The key take home point from Blocks


cri4que is that the FFM

Is
a

..

0%
an

sh
or
t-h

co
nv

e
fu
th
Re
f le
ct
s

en
ie
nt

nd
am
en
t

al

o
f h
oo
nc
h
b
u

0%
...

ey

0%

Is
a

A. Is a bunch of hooey
B. Reects the
fundamental nature
of T&P
C. Is a convenient
short-hand, a
some>mes useful
c>on that begs for
addi>onal research

In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walt Mischel argued


that the primary determinant of moods, thoughts, and behavior is

Th

e s
it

ua

ti o
n,
b

ec
au

0%
h

0%

Bo
t

se
..
.

0%

T&
P

A. The situa>on,
because T&P at
most predict
outcomes r = .30
(9% variance)
B. T&P
C. Both

But contemporary science suggests that moods, thoughts, and


behavior are determined by

A. The situa>on
B. T&P
C. Both

Th

e s
it

0%
h

T&
P

0%

Bo
t

ua

tio
n

0%

Trait-like individual dierences in T&P are strongly predic>ve


of

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Ac
ad
em
ic
pe
rfo
M
ar
rm
ita
an
l s
ce
ta
(.
b
..
M
ili
t
en
y &
ta
sa
l &
tis
p
fa
hy
...
sic
al
h
ea
lth
De
...
at
h
(m
or
ta
lit
Al
y)
l o
f t
he
ab
ov
e

A. Academic
performance (above
& beyond IQ)
B. Marital stability &
sa>sfac>on
C. Mental & physical
health and wellbeing
(morbidity)
D. Death (mortality)
E. All of the above

Correla>on and variance explained: If two


variables are correlated R = .50, the amount
of variance accounted for is:

.7
07
1

= 7
0%

0%

Sq
rt(
.5
0)
=

1
=

10
0%

0%

0.
50
/
0.
50
=

0.
50
=

.2
5 =
2
5%

0%

0.
50
*

A. 0.50 * 0.50 = .25 =


25%
B. 0.50 / 0.50 = 1 =
100%
C. Sqrt(.50) = .7071 =
70%

Longitudinal research studies

ov
e

0%

he
ab
of
t

Al
l

ti o

n,
...

0%

us
a

p
ro
ve
ca

no
t

ly

, a
n

d
tim
...

0%

Ca
n

pl
ex
, c
os
t

Co
m

e s
t

ro
n

g e
vid

en
ce
t.
..

0%

Pr
ov
id

A. Provide strong evidence that


antecedants (childhood) predict
consequences (adulthood), a
precondi>on for establishing
causa>on
B. Complex, costly, and >me-
consuming
C. Can not prove causa>on,
because they do not
manipulate the puta>ve cause
of the outcome
D. All of the above

Mo< et al PNAS: What is C/SC?

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

in
gs

b
Pr
y t
ef
he
er
b
o
oo
rd
k;
er
f.
an
..
Pl
d
an
n
ea
Ab
fu
tn
l;
le
no
es
to
s
t i
d
m
el
pu
ay
Fo
lsi
gr
cu
ve
at
se
ifi
d;
ca
n
tio
ot
e
n.
as
..
i ly
d
i st
Al
r..
l o
.
f t
he
ab
ov
e

0%

Do
th

A. Do things by the book;


follow rules
B. Prefer order and neatness
C. Planful; not impulsive
D. Able to delay gra>ca>on;
self-disciplined
(marshmallow test)
E. Focused; not easily
distracted
F. All of the above

Which features of modern culture tend to magnify the impact


of individual dierences in T&P, such as C/SC?

ti v

ov
e

0%

he
ab
of
t

Al
l

el
y

hi
g

h
p

re
va
l

n
.
oo
d

Th

e r
el
a

ur
e
(fa
s
ex
po
s

0%
...

..

0%

t f

Lo
n

ge
vit
y

0%

Ri
sk

A. Longevity
B. Risk exposure (fast
food na>on)
C. The rela>vely high
prevalance of
psychiatric disorders,
such as depression,
anxiety, and
substance abuse
D. All of the above

Mo< et al PNAS: Key results: Childhood


C/SC predicted mid-life

Co
m

po
s

i te
m
ea
s
po
s

0%

0%

0%

ur
e o
f h
ite
e.
m
..
ea
su
In
re
ca
o
rc
f p
er
e.
at
..
io
n,
cr
im
in
al
co
...
Al
l o
f t
he
ab
ov
e

0%

Co
m

A. Composite measure of
health
B. Composite measure of
personal wealth
C. Incarcera>on, criminal
convic>on and other
indices of public safety
D. All of the above

Mo< et al PNAS: Key results: Which is


true?

0%

Al
l

of
t

he
ab

ov
e

0%

pa
rt
..
ly

ar
es
ar
e o
n

ain

th
e
...

0%

Te
en
sn

ar
es
e
xp
l

Te
en
sn

ds

i th

lo

C
/S
C
a

re
..
.

0%

Ki

A. Kids with low C/SC are prone to


smoke, become parents, and
drop out of school as teens
B. Teen snares explain the
nega>ve adult outcomes
experienced by many kids with
low C/SC
C. Teen snares are only part of the
story. Might make more sense
to target the root cause (low
childhood C/SC) for inteven>on,
rather than teen symptoms
D. All of the above

PSYC 210:

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

AJ Shackman

12 February 2015

Todays Conceptual Roadmap


How are Traits (trait-like individual dierences in
T&P) related to States?
What is the role of the context, environment, or
what Mischel called the situa4on?
Can Traits inuence States in the absence of trait-
relevant cues or s4muli? Students?
Can N/NE inuence neg mood in the absence of threat?
Can E/PE inuence pos mood in the absence of reward?

Todays Conceptual Roadmap


How are Traits (trait-like individual dierences in
T&P) related to States?
What is the role of the context, environment, or
what Mischel called the situa4on?
Can Traits inuence States in the absence of trait-
relevant cues or s4muli? Students?
Can N/NE inuence neg mood in the absence of threat?
Can E/PE inuence pos mood in the absence of reward?

Todays Conceptual Roadmap


How are Traits (trait-like individual dierences in
T&P) related to States?
What is the role of the context, environment, or
what Mischel called the situa4on?
Can Traits inuence States in the absence of trait-
relevant cues or s4muli? Students?
Can N/NE inuence neg mood in the absence of threat?
Can E/PE inuence pos mood in the absence of reward?

Todays Conceptual Roadmap


How are Traits (trait-like individual dierences in
T&P) related to States?
What is the role of the context, environment, or
what Mischel called the situa4on?
Can Traits inuence States in the absence of trait-
relevant cues or s4muli? Students?
Can N/NE inuence neg mood in the absence of threat?
Can E/PE inuence pos mood in the absence of reward?

Mathews Chapter 4

Star4ng Point: What are traits?


Trait-like (stable) individual dierences in
emo>onal and cogni>ve biases that rst emerge
early in life (but con>nue to evolve for many years)
that account for consistency in behavior, inner
experience (moods, emo>ons, thoughts across
>me and contexts

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correla>on)
Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE,
and C/SC)

Star4ng Point: What are traits?


Trait-like (stable) individual dierences in
emo>onal and cogni>ve biases that rst emerge
early in life (but con>nue to evolve for many years)
that account for consistency in behavior, inner
experience (moods, emo>ons, thoughts across
>me and contexts Students?

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correla>on)
Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE,
and C/SC)

Star4ng Point: What are traits?


Trait-like (stable) individual dierences in
emo>onal and cogni>ve biases that rst emerge
early in life (but con>nue to evolve for many years)
that account for consistency in behavior, inner
experience (moods, emo>ons, thoughts across
>me and contexts

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correla>on)
Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE,
and C/SC)

Star4ng Point: What are traits?


Trait-like (stable) individual dierences in
emo>onal and cogni>ve biases that rst emerge
early in life (but con>nue to evolve for many years)
that account for consistency in behavior, inner
experience (moods, emo>ons, thoughts across
>me and contexts

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correla>on)
Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE,
and C/SC)

Star4ng Point: What are traits?


Trait-like (stable) individual dierences in
emo>onal and cogni>ve biases that rst emerge
early in life (but con>nue to evolve for many years)
that account for consistency in behavior, inner
experience (moods, emo>ons, thoughts across
>me and contexts

Stable: reasonable test-retest stability (correla>on)
Organized into 3 broad-band factors (N/NE, E/PE,
and C/SC)

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc


Tradi>onal measures give the impression
that each of us can be dened as a single,
rela>vely xed score

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

But recent experience sampling study
indicates that T&P is be<er conceptualized
as a stable distribu>on of scores with
marked varia>on 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 >me
4 about 28% of the >me
5 about 43% of the >me, and
6 about 11% of the >me
Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc


Tradi>onal measures give the impression
that each of us can be dened as a single,
rela>vely xed score

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

But recent research indicates that T&P is
be<er conceptualized as a distribu>on of
scores with marked varia>on 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 >me
4 about 28% of the >me
5 about 43% of the >me, and
6 about 11% of the >me
Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc

Distribu>on of Big 5 scores over 2 weeks of


experience sampling (7-point scale). 5
assessments per day. Total: 70 surveys.

Tradi>onal measures give the impression


that each of us can be dened as a single,
rela>vely xed score

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

But recent work indicates that T&P is be<er
conceptualized as a distribu>on of scores
with marked varia>on 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 >me
4 about 28% of the >me
5 about 43% of the >me, and
6 about 11% of the >me
Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc

Distribu>on of Big 5 scores over 2 weeks of


experience sampling (7-point scale). 5
assessments per day. Total: 70 surveys.

Tradi>onal measures give the impression


that each of us can be dened as a single,
rela>vely xed score

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

But recent work indicates that T&P is be<er
conceptualized as a distribu>on of scores
with marked varia>on 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 >me
4 about 28% of the >me
5 about 43% of the >me, and
6 about 11% of the >me
Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc


On a day to day basis, Extraverts quite
regularly act introverted, and Introverts
ouen act extraverted.

A key dierence between Extraverts and
Introverts is not that they do dierent
things, not in the frequency of being in the
tails of the distribu>ons, 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 ouen
than Introverts and vice versa

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc


On a day to day basis, Extraverts quite
regularly act introverted, and Introverts
ouen act extraverted.

A key dierence between Extraverts and
Introverts is not that they do dierent
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 ouen
than Introverts and vice versa

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Star4ng Point: Traits are probabilisJc


On a day to day basis, Extraverts quite
regularly act introverted, and Introverts
ouen act extraverted.

A key dierence between Extraverts and
Introverts is not that they do dierent
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 ouen than Introverts
and vice versa

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

How are traits related


to emoJonal states

Traits & States: 2 Ideas


1. Traits are simply the average of states
2. States reect an interac>on between traits
(biases to react in a par>cular way) and trait-
relevant cues and contexts (e.g.,
punishments and rewards)
-
-

Some evidence
Some possible limita>ons

Traits & States: 2 Ideas


1. Traits are simply the average of ee>ng states
2. States reect an interac>on between Traits
(biases to react in a par>cular way) and Trait-
Relevant Contexts (e.g., punishments and
rewards)
This Reac>ve view of traits is the dominant
perspec>ve in the eld today

Traits & States: 2 Ideas


1. Traits are simply the average of ee>ng states
2. States reect an interac>on between Traits
(biases to react in a par>cular way) and Trait-
Relevant Contexts (e.g., punishments and
rewards)
This Reac>ve view of traits is the dominant
perspec>ve in the eld today

Traits & States: 2 Ideas


1. Traits are simply the average of ee>ng states
2. States reect an interac>on between Traits
(biases to react in a par>cular way) and Trait-
Relevant Contexts (e.g., punishments and
rewards)
This Reac>ve view of traits is the dominant
perspec>ve in the eld today

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
Traits are simply an average of states
E.g., queried a subject repeatedly, day in and day out, for a month
6

0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
Traits are simply an average of states
E.g., queried a subject repeatedly, day in and day out, for a month
6

0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
Traits are simply an average of states
E.g., queried a subject repeatedly, day in and day out, for a month
6

0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
This model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states
come from or why individuals dier in their characteris>c intensity
And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predisposi>ons that occur in the
absence of discernible states
E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to
Avoid situa>ons associated with poten>al threat or danger
Engage in vigilance (checking and risk assessment behaviors)
Worry and ruminate
Do so even when threat is absent

Fleeson JPSP 2001, 2009

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
This model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states
come from or why individuals dier in their characteris>c intensity
And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predisposi>ons that occur in the
absence of discernible moods or statesat baseline
E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to
Avoid situa>ons associated with poten>al threat or danger
Engage in vigilance (checking and risk assessment behaviors)
Worry and ruminate
Do so even when threat is absent

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
This model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states
come from or why individuals dier in their characteris>c intensity
And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predisposi>ons that occur in the
absence of discernible moods or statesat baseline
E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to
Avoid situa>ons associated with poten>al threat or danger
Engage in vigilance (checking and risk assessment behaviors)
Worry and ruminate
Do so even when threat is absent

Students an example?
Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

Traits = Mean(State1, State2StateS)


The simplest possible model
This model is perhaps too simple, insofar as it does not specify where states
come from or why individuals dier in their characteris>c intensity
And it doesnt address trait-like biases and predisposi>ons that occur in the
absence of discernible moods or statesat baseline
E.g., Individuals with high levels of N/NE tend to
Avoid situa>ons associated with poten>al threat or danger even when
feeling rela5vely relaxed and calm
Engage in vigilance (checking and risk assessment behaviors)
Worry and ruminate even when threat is absent

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013; Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

What if youre always


on high alert, acJvely
scanning for danger,
even when the chance
of threat is remote

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States


Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)
Probabilis>cally alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states
elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts
E.g., A more disposi>onally 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 >me to
>me, the dierence lies in the frequency or the intensity
From this interac>ve perspec>ve,
Traits x Trait-Relevant Cues States
Covert Thoughts and Overt Behaviors

STUDENTS
What are some poten>al problems with this perspec>ve??

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States


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

re ore
cor5cal
[or] subcor5caldisposi5ons
having m
the
Traits
E.g., Aa m
disposi>onally
anxious individual will experience
ore cfapacity
requent or
to more
gate intense
or guide
specic
phasic
anxiety
in response
to rteac5ons.
hreat or danger


It Another
ay p
to
think a
about
this
is that
raits are
simply
the
of many
is only twhe
hasic
spect
that
is vtisible;
the
tonic
is acverage
arried
states
somehow
in the s5ll mysterious realm of neurodynamic structure.
It goes without saying that EVERYONE will experience some anxiety from >me to

Allport
(Amer
Psychol 1966)
>me, t he dierence
lies i
n tGordon
he frequency
or the
intensity

From this interac>ve perspec>ve,
Traits x Trait-Relevant Cues States
Covert Thoughts and Overt Behaviors

STUDENTS
What are some poten>al problems with this perspec>ve??

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States


Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)
Probabilis>cally alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states
elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts
E.g., A more disposi>onally 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 >me to
>me, the dierence lies in the frequency or the intensity
From this interac>ve perspec>ve,
Traits x Trait-Relevant Cues States
Covert Thoughts and Overt Behaviors

STUDENTS
What are some poten>al problems with this perspec>ve??

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States


Traits (Following Spielberger, Zuckerman, Eysenck)
Probabilis>cally alter the likelihood (frequency) or intensity of transient states
elicited by trait-relevant cues and contexts
E.g., A more disposi>onally 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 >me to
>me, the dierence lies in the frequency or the intensity
From this interac>ve perspec>ve,
Traits x Trait-Relevant Cues States
Covert Thoughts and Overt Behaviors

STUDENTS
What are some poten>al problems with this perspec>ve??

Model #2. Traits x Contexts = States

Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

In short

TRAITS

TRAIT-RELEVANT
CUES & CONTEXTS

STATES

Traits x Contexts = States







Hans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and
individual dierences

Proposed that individuals with high N/NE have overreac>ve limbic systems
The consequence, according to Eysenck, was that neuro>cs have stronger
sensi>vity to signals of punishment or nega>ve events and react more
intensely
Eysenck maintained that this oversensi>vity is biologically determined

Suls & Mar>n J Pers 2005

Traits x Contexts = States







Hans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and
individual dierences

Proposed that individuals with high N/NE have overreac>ve limbic systems
The consequence, according to Eysenck, was that neuro>cs have stronger
sensi>vity to signals of punishment or nega>ve events and react more
intensely
Eysenck maintained that this oversensi>vity is biologically determined

Suls & Mar>n J Pers 2005

Traits x Contexts = States







Hans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and
individual dierences

Proposed that individuals with high N/NE have overreac>ve limbic systems
The consequence, according to Eysenck, was that neuro>cs have stronger
sensi>vity to signals of punishment or nega>ve events and react more
intensely
Eysenck maintained that this oversensi>vity is biologically determined

Suls & Mar>n J Pers 2005

Traits x Contexts = States







Hans Eysenck (1967), one of the grandfathers of the study of personality and
individual dierences

Proposed that individuals with high N/NE have overreac>ve limbic systems
The consequence, according to Eysenck, was that neuro>cs have stronger
sensi>vity to signals of punishment or nega>ve events and react more
intensely
Eysenck maintained that this oversensi>vity is biologically determined and,
as we shall see later in the semester, other prominent theorists have
adopted and rened this logic (e.g., Jerry Kagan and the amygdala)
Suls & Mar>n J Pers 2005

Not just N/NE

Traits x Contexts = States

Hannah & Reward

Traits x Contexts = States


Hi E/PE
Lo E/PE
Bigger Peak Reac>vity
Hannah & Reward

Ventral Striatum (REW)


More Reac4ve in Extraverts

Students:

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 dierences in E/PE are posi>vely correlated with momentary posi>ve
aect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)

Traits x Contexts = States: #1 NaturalisJc Mood









e.g., individual dierences in E/PE are posi>vely correlated with momentary posi>ve
aect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)

Traits x Contexts = States: #1 NaturalisJc Mood



Pos A
Neg A






e.g., individual dierences in E/PE are posi>vely correlated with momentary posi>ve
aect (PA), R = .16 (~2% shared variance)

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood


Pos A

Neg A

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood


Pos A

Neg A

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

Traits x Contexts = States: #2 Experimental Mood

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

Students:

What are some potenJal limitaJons
of this model?

Traits Impact Mood When Relevant Cues are Absent

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

Traits Impact Mood When Relevant Cues are Absent

Larsen & Ketelaar JPSP 1991

N/NE Predicts Nega4ve Emo4on at Baseline

Meta-analysis: Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

N/NE Predicts Nega4ve Emo4on at Baseline

Individuals with high levels of N/NE report high levels of


momentary Anxiety and Nega4ve Aect (NA) at baseline

Meta-analysis: Watson & Clark Psychol Bull 1984

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Emo4on regula4on and recovery, the rapidity with which individuals return
to emo>onal baseline following the termina>on of a challenge
E.g., auer a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may stay up

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Emo4on regula4on and recovery, the rapidity with which individuals return
to emo>onal baseline following the termina>on of a challenge
E.g., auer a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may stay up

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Emo4on regula4on and recovery, the rapidity with which individuals return
to emo>onal baseline following the termina>on of a challenge
E.g., auer a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may stay up
An4cipatory aect, emo>onal states elicited by future events
E.g., an>cipa>ng a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may
become anxious

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


T&P Does Not Just Alter Transient Emo4onal States & Moods. T&P also alters:

Mo4va4on and instrumental behavior, the likelihood of encountering
rewards (posi>ve aect) and punishments (nega>ve aect)
E.g., anxious individuals are more avoidant and inhibited, reducing the
frequency with which they encounter anxiety-provoking s>muli

Emo4on regula4on and recovery, the rapidity with which individuals return
to emo>onal baseline following the termina>on of a challenge
E.g., auer a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may stay up
An4cipatory aect, emo>onal states elicited by future events
E.g., an>cipa>ng a stressful exam or even a date, anxious individuals may
become anxious

Grupe & Nitschke Nature Rev Neurosci 2013

As Borkovec notes

The Anxious Phenotype & An4cipatory Aect


It is quite likely that the summed [amount of] fear [for] any given individual to
clear and imminent physical or psychological threat








The Anxious Phenotype & An4cipatory Aect


It 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 anJcipaJon of such
events[Worry!]







Borkovec 1985

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


Common denominator = dierences in the absence of overt rewards/punishment











Suggests that the interac4ve model (traits x contexts states behavior) is
incomplete

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


Common denominator = dierences in the absence of overt rewards/punishment











Suggests that the interac4ve model (traits x contexts states) is incomplete

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


Appears that T&P alters momentary feelings, thoughts, and ac4ons through
several dierent mechanisms, including biases in:

emo4onal reac4vity to rewards and punishments
instrumental behaviors (e.g., avoidance, approach)
emo4on regula4on
an4cipatory aect

Traits x Contexts = States: Some Issues


Appears that T&P alters momentary feelings, thoughts, and ac4ons through
several dierent mechanisms, including biases in:

emo4onal reac4vity to rewards and punishments
instrumental behaviors (e.g., avoidance, approach)
emo4on regula4on
an4cipatory aect

Key Take Home Points


1. It was once thought that Traits x Contexts States Measureable Behaviors
2. Consistent with this, Traits and Emo>on States are moderately correlated, and this
correla>on is rela>vely specic to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Nega>ve Film Clips and
Neuro>cism, Posi>ve Film Clips and Extraversion)
3. But this does not account for important dierences in emo>onal states in situa>ons where
there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emo>onally-charged cues.
4. Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emo>onal reac>vity model is true but incomplete
5. Other mechanisms, such as
instrumental behaviors (eg avoidance/approach)
emo>on regula>on/recovery
an>cipatory emo>on/mo>va>on
dreams, hopes, and worries

Key Take Home Points


1. It was once thought that Traits x Contexts Emo>onal States
2. Consistent with this, Traits and Emo>on States are moderately correlated, and this
correla>on is rela>vely specic to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Nega>ve Film Clips and
Neuro>cism, Posi>ve Film Clips and Extraversion)
3. But this does not account for important dierences in emo>onal states in situa>ons where
there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emo>onally-charged cues.
4. Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emo>onal reac>vity model is true but incomplete
5. Other mechanisms, such as
instrumental behaviors (eg avoidance/approach)
emo>on regula>on/recovery
an>cipatory emo>on/mo>va>on
dreams, hopes, and worries

Key Take Home Points


1. It was once thought that Traits x Contexts Emo>onal States
2. Consistent with this, Traits and Emo>onal States are moderately correlated, and this
correla>on is rela>vely specic to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Nega>ve Film Clips and
Neuro>cism, Posi>ve Film Clips and Extraversion)
3. But this does not account for important dierences in emo>onal states in situa>ons where
there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emo>onally-charged cues.
4. Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emo>onal reac>vity model is true but incomplete
5. Other mechanisms, such as
instrumental behaviors (eg avoidance/approach)
emo>on regula>on/recovery
an>cipatory emo>on/mo>va>on
dreams, hopes, and worries

Key Take Home Points


1. It was once thought that Traits x Contexts Emo>onal States
2. Consistent with this, Traits and Emo>onal States are moderately correlated, and this
correla>on is rela>vely specic to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Nega>ve Film Clips and
Neuro>cism, Posi>ve Film Clips and Extraversion)
3. But this does not account for important dierences in emo>onal states in situa>ons where
there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emo>onally-charged cues.
4. Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emo>onal reac>vity model is true but incomplete
5. Other mechanisms, such as
instrumental behaviors (eg avoidance/approach)
emo>on regula>on/recovery
an>cipatory emo>on/mo>va>on
dreams, hopes, and worries

Key Take Home Points


1. It was once thought that Traits x Contexts Emo>onal States
2. Consistent with this, Traits and Emo>onal States are moderately correlated, and this
correla>on is rela>vely specic to Trait-Relevant Contexts (e.g., Nega>ve Film Clips and
Neuro>cism, Posi>ve Film Clips and Extraversion)
3. But this does not account for important dierences in emo>onal states in situa>ons where
there are not obvious rewards/punishments or other emo>onally-charged cues.
4. Therefore, the [Trait x Context = States] emo>onal reac>vity model is true but incomplete

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons

Please pick 2

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


1. Describe a real or hypothe5cal example of T&P
inuencing thoughts, feelings, or ac5ons in the
absence of mo5va5onally-signicant cueswhen
the protagonist of your real-life or hypothe5cal tale
is home, siIng comfortably on the couch, so to
speak

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


2. Briey describe one or more mechanisms that
could account for the enduring inuence of traits on
states (emo5onal, cogni5ve) in the absence of a
clear and imminent reward or punishment

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


3. 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?

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


4. Briey comment
Are Traits and States categorically dierent or do they instead
reect a con5nuous spectrum?

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

A CORE: rela>vely xed and immutable, slow to change
PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on
intermediate >me scales (more ee>ng than traits, more
enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even
mercurial dynamics

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


4. Briey comment
Are Traits and States categorically dierent or do they instead
reect a con5nuous spectrum?

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

A CORE: rela>vely xed and immutable, slow to change
PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on
intermediate >me scales (more ee>ng than traits, more
enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even
mercurial dynamics

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


4. Briey comment
Are Traits and States categorically dierent or do they instead
reect a con5nuous spectrum?

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

A CORE: rela>vely xed and immutable, slow to change
PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on
intermediate >me scales (more ee>ng than traits, more
enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even
mercurial dynamics

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


4. Briey comment
Are Traits and States categorically dierent or do they instead
reect a con5nuous spectrum?

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

A CORE: rela>vely xed and immutable, slow to change
PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on
intermediate >me scales (more ee>ng than traits, more
enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even
mercurial dynamics

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons


4. Briey comment
Are Traits and States categorically dierent or do they instead
reect a con5nuous spectrum?

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

A CORE: rela>vely xed and immutable, slow to change
PLATE TECTONICS: a range of processes that act on
intermediate >me scales (more ee>ng than traits, more
enduring than states)

AN ATMOSPHERE: transient states, with rapid even
mercurial dynamics

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons




5. New technology makes it possible to eciently detect and
code emo>onal expressions on the face from digital
photographs or video footage.

Watch the video @
h<p://www.wsj.com/ar>cles/startups-see-your-face-unmask-your-emo>ons-1422472398


Briey comment on how we might harness this technology for
understanding the rela>onship between emo>onal traits and
states.

Cri4cal Thinking Ques4ons




5. New technology makes it possible to eciently detect and
code emo>onal expressions on the face from digital
photographs or video footage.

Watch the video @
h<p://www.wsj.com/ar>cles/startups-see-your-face-unmask-your-emo>ons-1422472398


Briey comment on how we might harness this technology for
understanding the rela>onship between emo>onal traits and
states.

The End

Check Jme

If there is Jme, talk about
unconscious material from Module 4

Behavior is normally guided by both


conscious and pre-conscious
processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #1: Automa4c aEtudes and
marriage

Behavior is normally guided by both


conscious and pre-conscious
processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #1: Automa4c aEtudes and
marriage

For decades, social psychological theories


have posited that the automa>c processes
captured by implicit measures have
implica>ons for social outcomes. Yet few
studies have demonstrated any long-term
implica>ons of automa>c processes, and
some scholars have begun to ques>on the
relevance and even the validity of these
theories.





135 newlywed couplescompleted an
Explicit measure of their conscious
atudes toward their rela>onship and an
Implicit measure of their automa>c
atudes toward their partner. They then
reported their marital sa>sfac>on
every 6 months for the next 4 years.

For decades, social psychological theories


have posited that the automa>c processes
captured by implicit measures have
implica>ons for social outcomes. Yet few
studies have demonstrated any long-term
implica>ons of automa>c processes, and
some scholars have begun to ques>on the
relevance and even the validity of these
theories.





135 newlywed couplescompleted an
Explicit measure of their conscious
atudes toward their rela>onship and an
Implicit measure of their automa>c
atudes toward their partner. They then
reported their marital sa>sfac>on
every 6 months for the next 4 years.

Measuring Implicit AEtudes



Indicate as quickly as possible the
valence of posi>ve & nega>ve words auer
seeing photographs of their partner

An index of spouses automa>c atudes
was formed by subtrac>ng RT for posi>ve
words from RT for nega>ve words

Higher scores = more posi>ve atudes

evil

awesome

Measuring Implicit AEtudes



Indicate as quickly as possible the
valence of posi>ve & nega>ve words auer
seeing photographs of their partner

An index of spouses automa>c atudes
was formed by subtrac>ng RT for posi>ve
words from RT for nega>ve words

Higher scores = more posi>ve atudes

evil

awesome
evil

awesome

Implicit
Atude
Toward
Spouse

Lovers

500

200

300

Haters

200

500

-300

We found no correla>on between spouses


automa>c and conscious atudes
Ss were unaware of their automa>c
atudes.

Further, spouses automa>c atudes, not
their conscious ones, predicted changes
in their marital sa>sfac>on

spouses with more posi>ve automa>c
atudes were less likely to experience
declines in marital sa>sfac>on over >me.

We found no correla>on between spouses


automa>c and conscious atudes
Ss were unaware of their automa>c
atudes.

Further, spouses automa>c atudes, not
their conscious ones, predicted changes
in their marital sa>sfac>on

spouses with more posi5ve automaJc
aItudes were less likely to experience
declines in marital sa5sfac5on over 5me.

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 Emo4onal Learning (SCR) and Cogni4ve Learning (con4gency awareness)

Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)

Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)


Maryland Neuroimaging Center

Phils SCR to an
electric shock

Measure of the skins electrical conductance



Varies depending on the amount of moisture

Sweat! Controlled by the SNS

Indica>on of psychological or physiological
arousal

Widely used measure of emo>onal arousal

Condi>onable

Skin Conductance (aka SCR, GSR, EDA)


Maryland Neuroimaging Center

Phils SCR to an
electric shock

Measure of the skins electrical conductance



Varies depending on the amount of moisture

Sweat! Controlled by the SNS

Indica>on of psychological or physiological
arousal

Widely used measure of emo>onal arousal

Condi>onable (learned emo>onal reac>on)

Results

Amygdala Lesions
- block the emo>onal component of fear



learning (SCR), but not con>ngency


awareness
Hippocampal Lesions
- Opposite pa<ern
Implica4on
- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are
independent and reect dis>nct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions
- block the emo>onal component of fear



learning (SCR), but not con>ngency


awareness
Hippocampal Lesions
- Opposite pa<ern
Implica4on
- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are
independent and reect dis>nct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions
- block the emo>onal component of fear



learning (SCR), but not con>ngency


awareness
Hippocampal Lesions
- Opposite pa<erni.e., a double dissocia>on
Implica4on
- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are
independent and reect dis>nct neural circuitry

Results

Amygdala Lesions
- block the emo>onal component of fear



learning (SCR), but not con>ngency


awareness
Hippocampal Lesions
- Opposite pa<erni.e., a double dissocia>on
Implica4on
- Conscious and pre-conscious processes are
independent and reect dis>nct neural circuitry

Implica4on
Behavior is normally guided by both
conscious and pre-conscious processes
(lie outside of awareness)

Understanding aspects of T&P
that lie outside of conscious awareness
mandates the use of implicit behavioral
or physiological measures (e.g. SCR/GSR)

End of 2 Examples Material

The End

To consider adding in future terms

rd
Extra Slides: 3 Example

Behavior is normally guided by both


conscious and pre-conscious
processes (lie outside of awareness)

Example #3: Unconscious emo4onal
processes can guide actual behavior

Iowa Gambling Task


Ss pick 1 card at a >me with the aim of maximizing reward
BAD Decks (A/B): big payo with unpredictable big losses
GOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

Iowa Gambling Task


Ss pick 1 card at a >me with the aim of maximizing reward
BAD Decks (A/B): big payo with unpredictable big losses
GOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

BAD

BAD

GOOD

GOOD

Iowa Gambling Task


Ss pick 1 card at a >me with the aim of maximizing reward
BAD Decks (A/B): big payo with unpredictable big losses
GOOD Decks (C/D), smaller immediate gain, smaller losses; higher net reward

A
00000

A
00000

Potrebbero piacerti anche