Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Today
Cumulative review
PSYC 210:
How Can We Discover and Measure
Individual Differences in T&P?
AJ Shackman
10 February 2015
Non-Mathematical Example
Recall the survey that
you completed in class
Loss of 56.3%
Loss of 13.5%
Loss of 56.3%
Loss of 13.5%
F2: Worry
F3: Depression
F4: Junk
Limitations of Factor
Analysis
Subjective, the Analyst
Has to Choose
The number of factors to retain
The rotation, should the factors be statistically uncorrelated
(orthogonal) or correlated (oblique)
"...each orientation is equally acceptable mathematically. But
different theories proved to differ as much in terms of the [choice of
rotation] as in terms of anything else, so that model fitting did not
prove to be useful in distinguishing among theories." (Sternberg,
1977).
All rotations are equally valid mathematical outcomes. There is no
unique or optimal solution. Different interpretations are equally valid.
Limitations of Factor
Analysis
Subjective, the Analyst
Has to Choose
The number of factors to retain
The rotation, should the factors be statistically uncorrelated
(orthogonal) or correlated (oblique)
"...each orientation is equally acceptable mathematically. But
different theories proved to differ as much in terms of the [choice of
rotation] as in terms of anything else, so that model fitting did not
prove to be useful in distinguishing among theories." (Sternberg,
1977).
All rotations are equally valid mathematical outcomes. There is no
unique or optimal solution. Different interpretations are equally valid.
Limitations of Factor
Analysis
Subjective, the Analyst
Has to Choose
The number of factors to retain
The rotation, should the factors be statistically uncorrelated
(orthogonal) or correlated (oblique)
F1 F2 But
"...each orientation is equally acceptable mathematically.
different theories proved to differ as much in terms of the [choice of
rotation] as in terms of anything else, so that model fitting did not
prove to we
be useful
in distinguishing
among
re concretely,
have to
choose whether
we theories." (Sternberg,
1977).
nk that
F1 (distress) and F2 (worry) are
ated or
in terms
their
Allunrelated,
rotations are
equallyofvalid
mathematical outcomes. There is no
derlying
psychology
and
neurobiology
unique
or optimal
solution.
Different interpretations are equally valid.
Limitations of Factor
Analysis
Subjective, the Analyst
Has to Choose
The number of factors to retain
The rotation, should the factors be statistically uncorrelated
(orthogonal) or correlated (oblique)
All rotations are equally valid mathematical outcomes there
is nothing inherent in the mathematics of factor analysis that
tells you which rotation is the right one
Limitations of Factor
Analysis
Subjective, the Analyst
Has to Choose
The number of factors to retain
The rotation, should the factors be statistically uncorrelated
(orthogonal) or correlated (oblique)
All rotations are equally valid mathematical outcomes there
is nothing inherent in the mathematics of factor analysis that
tells you which rotation is the right one
Norman 1960s
Again, various subjective (but herculean) ad hoc approaches to
turning very large lists of words (adjectives or trait descriptors) into
a manageable set of dimensions
dents:
An explanation by
means of a automobile analogy
behavioral observations,
psychophysiological measures,
individual differences in various standardized situational contexts,
the garnering of life facts about the persons studied,
truly intimate interviews, and
the longitudinal study of personality development.
behavioral observations,
psychophysiological measures,
individual differences in various standardized situational contexts,
the garnering of life facts about the persons studied,
truly intimate interviews, and
the longitudinal study of personality development.
Students???
Behavior is normally guided by both conscious and preconscious processes (lie outside of awareness)
Behavior is normally guided by both conscious and preconscious processes (lie outside of awareness)
Behavior is normally guided by both conscious and preconscious processes (lie outside of awareness)
Some mental processes are too fast for self-report or lie outside of conscious
awareness
Some mental processes are too fast for self-report or lie outside of conscious
awareness
tudents???
Whats a possible solution?
Shackman et al. 2007; Shackman et al. 2011; Shackman Shackman et al. under
Implication
Understanding aspects of T&P
(N/NE, E/PE, C/SC)
that lie outside of conscious awareness
mandates the use of behavioral or physiological assays
Tasks
Resting Physiology
ask-Evoked Physiology
Tasks
Cog Tasks
Resting Physiology
ask-Evoked Physiology
Tasks
Cog Tasks
Resting Physiology
PET
rs-fMRI
EEG
MRS
ask-Evoked Physiology
Tasks
Cog Tasks
Resting Physiology
PET
rs-fMRI
EEG
MRS
ask-Evoked Physiology
Startle Reflex
ERPs
PET During Behl Challenge
sychometric = statistical
sychometric = statistical
2 Kinds of Reliability
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high ICR is undesirable: items are redundant
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high ICR is undesirable: items are redundant
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together (covary) or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high ICR is undesirable: items are redundant
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together (covary) or provide the same rank order of Ss
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Brief examples
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be trait-like (stable)
Rank order consistency (mean neednt be stable)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
What does a measure actually measure? (functional significance)
What inferences can we legitimately draw from a measure?
E.g., Is amygdala activation specifically indicative of anxiety
or is it activated by a range of socially and motivationally
significant stimuli?
E.g., Is electrodermal activity (SCR) indicative of stress,
arousal, cognitive load?
E.g., Is the startle reflex sensitive to any strong emotional
state or is it linearly related to valence (NEG > NEU > POS)?
Students???
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
What does a measure actually measure? (functional significance)
What inferences can we legitimately draw from a measure?
E.g., Is amygdala activation specifically indicative of anxiety
or is it activated by a range of socially and motivationally
significant stimuli?
E.g., Is electrodermal activity (SCR) indicative of stress,
arousal, cognitive load?
E.g., Is the startle reflex sensitive to any strong emotional
state or is it linearly related to valence (NEG > NEU > POS)?
Students???
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
What does a measure actually measure? (functional significance)
What inferences can we legitimately draw from a measure?
E.g., Is amygdala activation specifically indicative of anxiety
or is it activated by a range of socially and motivationally
significant stimuli?
E.g., Is electrodermal activity (SCR) indicative of stress,
arousal, cognitive load?
E.g., Is the startle reflex sensitive to any strong emotional
state or is it linearly related to emotional valence (NEG >
NEU > POS)?
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
What does a measure actually measure? (functional significance)
What inferences can we legitimately draw from a measure?
E.g., Is amygdala activation specifically indicative of anxiety
or is it activated by a range of socially and motivationally
significant stimuli?
E.g., Is electrodermal activity (SCR) indicative of stress,
arousal, cognitive load?
E.g., Is the startle reflex sensitive to any strong emotional
state or is it linearly related to emotional valence (NEG >
NEU > POS)?
Students???
How might we forge this link ?
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
In order to establish the functional significance or construct
validity of a measure
1. Psychological Sensitivity
E.g., probability of amygdala activation, given fear-arousing
stimuli
AND
2. Psychological Specificity
Reverse
E.g., Probability of fear, given amygdala activation
Oftentimes, low specificity is not explicitly acknowledged
In both cases, mechanistic studies are helpful directly manipulate the
measure (lesions, TMS, drugs, etc.) and asses consequences for
construct of interest (e.g., fear) and other constructs (e.g., attention)
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
In order to establish the functional significance or construct
validity of a measure
1. Psychological Sensitivity
E.g., probability of amygdala activation, given fear-arousing
stimuli
AND
2. Psychological Specificity
Reverse
E.g., Probability of fear, given amygdala activation
Oftentimes, low specificity is not explicitly acknowledged
In both cases, mechanistic studies are helpful directly manipulate the
measure (lesions, TMS, drugs, etc.) and asses consequences for
construct of interest (e.g., fear) and other constructs (e.g., attention)
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
In order to establish the functional significance or construct
validity of a measure
1. Psychological Sensitivity
E.g., probability of amygdala activation, given fear-arousing
stimuli
AND
2. Psychological Specificity
Reverse inference
E.g., Probability of fear, given amygdala activation
Oftentimes, low specificity is not explicitly acknowledged
In both cases, mechanistic studies are helpful directly manipulate the
measure (lesions, TMS, drugs, etc.) and asses consequences for
construct of interest (e.g., fear) and other constructs (e.g., attention)
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
In order to establish the functional significance or construct
validity of a measure
1. Psychological Sensitivity
E.g., probability of amygdala activation, given fear-arousing
stimuli
AND
2. Psychological Specificity
Reverse inference
E.g., Probability of fear, given amygdala activation
Oftentimes, low specificity is not explicitly acknowledged
because researchers focus on a small number of psychological
processes (e.g., emotion or cognition)
In both cases, mechanistic studies are helpful directly manipulate the
measure (lesions, TMS, drugs, etc.) and asses consequences for
construct of interest (e.g., fear) and other constructs (e.g., attention)
Construct Validity:
Linking Physiological Measures to T&P
In order to establish the functional significance or construct
validity of a measure
1. Psychological Sensitivity
E.g., probability of amygdala activation, given fear-arousing
stimuli
AND
2. Psychological Specificity
Reverse inference
E.g., Probability of fear, given amygdala activation
Oftentimes, low specificity is not explicitly acknowledged
because researchers focus on a small number of psychological
processes (e.g., emotion or cognition)
In both cases, mechanistic studies are helpful directly manipulate the
measure (lesions, TMS, drugs, etc.) and assess consequences for
construct of interest (e.g., fear) and other constructs (e.g., attention)
Critical Thinking
Questions
Critical Thinking
Questions
1. Jack Block argued that,
we should not limit [our] thinking and research by considering
only what is or will be convenient to index via simple self-report
or layperson-report measuresTo study [T&P, we]will need to
turn, or return, to more complicated and complex ways of
studying persons
What do you think?
Based on what you know about the Big 3 traits (see the slides
from last time) or their facets, briefly describe a novel
experiment that exploits a measure other than self-report to
discover and understand some important aspect of T&P.
For example, you could think about ways to clarify whether C/SC
involves heightened anxiety about order, rules, or deadlines.
Critical Thinking
Questions
1. Jack Block argued that,
we should not limit [our] thinking and research by considering
only what is or will be convenient to index via simple self-report
or layperson-report measuresTo study [T&P, we]will need to
turn, or return, to more complicated and complex ways of
studying persons
What do you think?
Based on what you know about the Big 3 traits (see the slides
from last time) or their facets, briefly describe a novel
experiment that exploits a measure other than self-report to
discover and understand some important aspect of T&P.
For example, you could think about ways to clarify whether C/SC
involves heightened anxiety about order, rules, or deadlines.
Critical Thinking
Questions
2. If traits are superficial and descriptive (rather than explanations of behavior), what good
are they?
David Funder (1994) described what I call The Neurotic Professor,
I have a friend and colleague who has served as a faculty member in several departments.
In each job, he's been miserable. He can enumerate very persuasively why each of his
department chairs was an unfair tyrant, why each teaching load was excessive, how office
space and salary were unfair and paltryHe really is persuasive. But you know what? I
think he'd be unhappy anywhere. I think he's got a trait. He exhibits a behavioral pattern
(of complaining) from which I infer an emotional pattern (of feeling miserable) that I think
does explain why he is saying such nasty things about his latest department.
To explain a behavior in terms of the broader pattern of which it is a part-as I have just
done-can be a legitimate and useful step in the (infinite) explanatory regress. I know, it's
not complete. We still don't know why my friend is such a negativistic cynic. But identifying
him as such provides (a) insight into his current actions (and feelings, which we infer from
his actions), (b) a basis for predicting his future actions and feelings, and (c) a useful
analytic rest stop. We have explained his behavior; take a breath; now we need to explain
the explanation
What do you think?
Briefly describe a strategy or two for addressing the origins of The Neurotic Professor?
Critical Thinking
Questions
2. If traits are superficial and descriptive (rather than explanations of behavior), what good
are they?
David Funder (1994) described what I call The Neurotic Professor,
I have a friend and colleague who has served as a faculty member in several departments.
In each job, he's been miserable. He can enumerate very persuasively why each of his
department chairs was an unfair tyrant, why each teaching load was excessive, how office
space and salary were unfair and paltryHe really is persuasive. But you know what? I
think he'd be unhappy anywhere. I think he's got a trait. He exhibits a behavioral pattern
(of complaining) from which I infer an emotional pattern (of feeling miserable) that I think
does explain why he is saying such nasty things about his latest department.
To explain a behavior in terms of the broader pattern of which it is a part-as I have just
done-can be a legitimate and useful step in the (infinite) explanatory regress. I know, it's
not complete. We still don't know why my friend is such a negativistic cynic. But identifying
him as such provides (a) insight into his current actions (and feelings, which we infer from
his actions), (b) a basis for predicting his future actions and feelings, and (c) a useful
analytic rest stop. We have explained his behavior; take a breath; now we need to explain
the explanation
What do you think?
Briefly describe a strategy or two for addressing the origins of The Neurotic Professor?
Critical Thinking
Questions
2. If traits are superficial and descriptive (rather than explanations of behavior), what good
are they?
David Funder (1994) described what I call The Neurotic Professor,
I have a friend and colleague who has served as a faculty member in several departments.
In each job, he's been miserable. He can enumerate very persuasively why each of his
department chairs was an unfair tyrant, why each teaching load was excessive, how office
space and salary were unfair and paltryHe really is persuasive. But you know what? I
think he'd be unhappy anywhere. I think he's got a trait. He exhibits a behavioral pattern
(of complaining) from which I infer an emotional pattern (of feeling miserable) that I think
does explain why he is saying such nasty things about his latest department.
To explain a behavior in terms of the broader pattern of which it is a part-as I have just
done-can be a legitimate and useful step in the (infinite) explanatory regress. I know, it's
not complete. We still don't know why my friend is such a negativistic cynic. But identifying
him as such provides (a) insight into his current actions (and feelings, which we infer from
his actions), (b) a basis for predicting his future actions and feelings, and (c) a useful
analytic rest stop. We have explained his behavior; take a breath; now we need to explain
the explanation
What do you think?
Briefly describe a strategy or two for addressing the origins of The Neurotic Professor?
Critical Thinking
Questions
2. If traits are superficial and descriptive (rather than explanations of behavior), what good
are they?
David Funder (1994) described what I call The Neurotic Professor,
I have a friend and colleague who has served as a faculty member in several departments. In
each job, he's been miserable. He can enumerate very persuasively why each of his
department chairs was an unfair tyrant, why each teaching load was excessive, how office
space and salary were unfair and paltryHe really is persuasive. But you know what? I think
he'd be unhappy anywhere. I think he's got a trait. He exhibits a behavioral pattern (of
complaining) from which I infer an emotional pattern (of feeling miserable) that I think does
explain why he is saying such nasty things about his latest department.
To explain a behavior in terms of the broader pattern of which it is a part-as I have just donecan be a legitimate and useful step in the (infinite) explanatory regress. I know, it's not
complete. We still don't know why my friend is such a negativistic cynic. But identifying him
as such provides (a) insight into his current actions (and feelings, which we infer from his
actions), (b) a basis for predicting his future actions and feelings, and (c) a useful analytic
rest stop. We have explained his behavior; take a breath; now we need to explain the
explanation
What do you think?
Briefly describe a strategy or two for addressing the origins of The Neurotic Professor, that is,
for reverse engineering the systems that underlie N/NE or some other dimension of T&P.
Critical Thinking
Questions
3. Andy Tomarken underscored the importance of reliability for
behavioral and biological measures of T&P
Recent work suggests that the dot-probe task (a widely used
measure of anxious individuals vigilance for threat) is not reliable
Critical Thinking
Questions
3. Andy Tomarken underscored the importance of reliability for
behavioral and biological measures of T&P
Recent work suggests that the dot-probe task (a widely used
measure of anxious individuals vigilance for threat) is not reliable
Critical Thinking
Questions
3. Andy Tomarken underscored the importance of reliability for
behavioral and biological measures of T&P
Recent work suggests that the dot-probe task (a widely used
measure of anxious individuals vigilance for threat) is not reliable
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Andy Tomarken underscored
the importance of establishing the
sensitivity and specificity (construct validity) of biological measures of
T&P (e.g., fMRI, PET, EEG, ERP, GSR, startle, HR, cortisol, etc.)
What do you think?
a) Briefly describe how you might test the specificity of one of these
measures, the probability that it will be activated or engaged given a
particular process or perturbation (such as the induction of anxiety vs.
other.
-orb) Play with Neurosynth.org, an on-line tool that allows you to dynamically
assess the sensitivity and specificity of different brain regions. Then
write a short paragraph describing what you did and what you learned.
It need not be a deep insight, its sufficient to just go play with it and
see what you uncover about sensitivity (forward inference) and
specificity (reverse inference). The next few slides provide some
pointers for interested students.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Andy Tomarken underscored
the importance of establishing the
sensitivity and specificity (construct validity) of biological measures of
T&P (e.g., fMRI, PET, EEG, ERP, GSR, startle, HR, cortisol, etc.)
What do you think?
a) Briefly describe how you might test the specificity of one of these
measures, the probability that it will be activated or engaged given a
particular process or perturbation (such as the induction of anxiety vs.
other states).
-orb) Play with Neurosynth.org, an on-line tool that allows you to dynamically
assess the sensitivity and specificity of different brain regions. Then
write a short paragraph describing what you did and what you learned.
It need not be a deep insight, its sufficient to just go play with it and
see what you uncover about sensitivity (forward inference) and
specificity (reverse inference). The next few slides provide some
pointers for interested students.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Scientists can be sloppy in their use of language. Does fear in a rat exposed to cues
paired with shock reflect the same processes involved in N/NE? In anxiety disorders? In
specific phobias? Is Neuroticism in adults synonymous with Behavioral Inhibition in kids?
What about Harm Avoidance?
In a recent review focused on Theory of Mind, Schaafsma and colleagues (TiCS 2015)
described this kind of communication break down:
The term X [e.g. self-control] is used interchangeably with Q, R, and S, to name only a
few. This diversity of terms used is probably telling: different investigators have different
concepts in mind.
Different levels of description (e.g., neural vs. self-report vs. behavior), together with the
different terms used, make it difficult even for experts from different fields to navigate
both what is meant by X and how to study it using scientific methods...to the uninitiated,
the topic becomes bewildering.
The problem is that these differences [are implicit and unspoken]
[Thus] it has been [extraordinarily difficult] to triangulate the actual [psychological,
genetic, and neuobiological] processes involved.
What do you think? Briefly describe a strategy for addressing this road block.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Scientists can be sloppy in their use of language. Does fear in a rat exposed to cues
paired with shock reflect the same processes involved in N/NE? In anxiety disorders? In
specific phobias? Is Neuroticism in adults synonymous with Behavioral Inhibition in kids?
What about Harm Avoidance?
In a recent review focused on Theory of Mind, Schaafsma and colleagues (TiCS 2015)
described this kind of communication break down:
The term X [e.g. self-control] is used interchangeably with Q, R, and S, to name only a
few. This diversity of terms used is probably telling: different investigators have different
concepts in mind.
Different levels of description (e.g., neural vs. self-report vs. behavior), together with the
different terms used, make it difficult even for experts from different fields to navigate
both what is meant by X and how to study it using scientific methods...to the uninitiated,
the topic becomes bewildering.
The problem is that these differences [are implicit and unspoken]
[Thus] it has been [extraordinarily difficult] to triangulate the actual [psychological,
genetic, and neuobiological] processes involved.
What do you think? Briefly describe a strategy for addressing this road block.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Scientists can be sloppy in their use of language. Does fear in a rat exposed to cues
paired with shock reflect the same processes involved in N/NE? In anxiety disorders? In
specific phobias? Is Neuroticism in adults synonymous with Behavioral Inhibition in kids?
What about Harm Avoidance?
In a recent review focused on Theory of Mind, Schaafsma and colleagues (TiCS 2015)
described this kind of communication break down:
The term X [e.g. self-control] is used interchangeably with Q, R, and S, to name only a
few. This diversity of terms used is probably telling: different investigators have different
concepts in mind.
Different levels of description (e.g., neural vs. self-report vs. behavior), together with the
different terms used, make it difficult even for experts from different fields to navigate
both what is meant by X and how to study it using scientific methods...to the uninitiated,
the topic becomes bewildering.
The problem is that these differences [are implicit and unspoken]
[Thus] it has been [extraordinarily difficult] to triangulate the actual [psychological,
genetic, and neuobiological] processes involved.
What do you think? Briefly describe a strategy for addressing this road block.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Scientists can be sloppy in their use of language. Does fear in a rat exposed to cues
paired with shock reflect the same processes involved in N/NE? In anxiety disorders? In
specific phobias? Is Neuroticism in adults synonymous with Behavioral Inhibition in kids?
What about Harm Avoidance?
In a recent review focused on Theory of Mind, Schaafsma and colleagues (TiCS 2015)
described this kind of communication break down:
The term X [e.g. self-control] is used interchangeably with Q, R, and S, to name only a
few. This diversity of terms used is probably telling: different investigators have different
concepts in mind.
Different levels of description (e.g., neural vs. self-report vs. behavior), together with the
different terms used, make it difficult even for experts from different fields to navigate
both what is meant by X and how to study it using scientific methods...to the uninitiated,
the topic becomes bewildering.
The problem is that these differences [are implicit and unspoken]
[Thus] it has been [extraordinarily difficult] to triangulate the actual [psychological,
genetic, and neuobiological] processes involved.
What do you think? Briefly describe a strategy for addressing this road block.
Critical Thinking
Questions
4. Scientists can be sloppy in their use of language. Does fear in a rat exposed to cues
paired with shock reflect the same processes involved in N/NE? In anxiety disorders? In
specific phobias? Is Neuroticism in adults synonymous with Behavioral Inhibition in kids?
What about Harm Avoidance?
In a recent review focused on Theory of Mind, Schaafsma and colleagues (TiCS 2015)
described this kind of communication break down:
The term X [e.g. self-control] is used interchangeably with Q, R, and S, to name only a
few. This diversity of terms used is probably telling: different investigators have different
concepts in mind.
Different levels of description (e.g., neural vs. self-report vs. behavior), together with the
different terms used, make it difficult even for experts from different fields to navigate
both what is meant by X and how to study it using scientific methods...to the uninitiated,
the topic becomes bewildering.
The problem is that these differences [are implicit and unspoken]
[Thus] it has been [extraordinarily difficult] to triangulate the actual [psychological,
genetic, and neuobiological] processes involved.
What do you think? Briefly describe a strategy for addressing this road block.
Critical Thinking
Questions
5. Andy Tomarken underscored
the importance of establishing the
sensitivity and specificity (construct validity) of biological measures of
T&P (e.g., fMRI, PET, EEG, ERP, GSR, startle, HR, cortisol, etc.)
What do you think?
a) Briefly describe how you might test the specificity of one of these
measures, the probability that it will be activated or engaged given a
particular process or perturbation (such as the induction of anxiety vs.
other states).
-orb) Play with Neurosynth.org, an on-line tool that allows you to dynamically
assess the sensitivity and specificity of different brain regions. Then
write a short paragraph describing what you did and what you learned.
It need not be a deep insight, its sufficient to just go play with it and
see what you uncover about sensitivity (forward inference) and
specificity (reverse inference). The next few slides provide some
pointers for interested students.
Critical Thinking
Questions
5. Andy Tomarken underscored
the importance of establishing the
sensitivity and specificity (construct validity) of biological measures of
T&P (e.g., fMRI, PET, EEG, ERP, GSR, startle, HR, cortisol, etc.)
What do you think?
a) Briefly describe how you might test the specificity of one of these
measures, the probability that it will be activated or engaged given a
particular process or perturbation (such as the induction of anxiety vs.
other states).
-orb) Play with Neurosynth.org, an on-line tool that allows you to dynamically
assess the sensitivity and specificity of different brain regions. Then
write a short paragraph describing what you did and what you learned.
It need not be a deep insight, its sufficient to just go play with it and
see what you uncover about sensitivity (forward inference) and
specificity (reverse inference). The next few slides provide some
pointers for interested students.
Critical Thinking
Questions
5. Andy Tomarken underscored
the importance of establishing the
sensitivity and specificity (construct validity) of biological measures of
T&P (e.g., fMRI, PET, EEG, ERP, GSR, startle, HR, cortisol, etc.)
What do you think?
a) Briefly describe how you might test the specificity of one of these
measures, the probability that it will be activated or engaged given a
particular process or perturbation (such as the induction of anxiety vs.
other states).
-orb) Play with Neurosynth.org, an on-line tool that allows you to dynamically
assess the sensitivity and specificity of different brain regions. Then
write a short paragraph describing what you did and what you learned.
It need not be a deep insight, its sufficient to just go play with it and
see what you uncover about sensitivity (forward inference) and
specificity (reverse inference). The next few slides provide some
pointers for interested students.
Time-Permitting
Review Questions
Note: NeuroSynth.org slides follow
A. Smoking
B. Becoming a parent
C. Excessive video
game playing
D. Violence in the
media
E. High-caffeine energy
drinks
F. A & B
G. C & D
A. Biological
B. Emotional
C. Cognitive
D. Somewhat
heritable
E. All of the above
A. N/NE
B. P/TA
C. E/PE
D. S/RE
E. C/SC
F. A, C, and E
G. A, B, and C
A. Distress
(fear/anxiety)
and Irritation
(anger)
B. Guilt and Shame
A. Students t test
B. ANOVA
C. Correlation
T&P is
A. Fixed and
immutable
B. Moderately stable
(R = 0.4 to 0.6
over periods of
one to several
years)
C. Completely plastic
and malleable
NeuroSynth.org Slides
can click around with your mouse on the brain and the coordinates will be autofi
The End
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
Reliability (Alpha and Test-Retest)
Sets an upper limit on the magnitude of correlations with external
measures
Can be enhanced by aggregation
Average out random noise or state-specific variance
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
Reliability (Alpha and Test-Retest)
Sets an upper limit on the magnitude of correlations with external
measures
Can be enhanced by aggregation (increase the number of
measurements)
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
Reliability (Alpha and Test-Retest)
Sets an upper limit on the magnitude of correlations with external
measures
Can be enhanced by aggregation (increase the number of
measurements)
2 Kinds of Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Degree to which a scale measures a single latent construct
Items hang together or provide the same rank order of Ss
Necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality
requires factor analysis
Very high Alpha is undesirable: items are redundant
Temporal Stability / Test-Rest Reliability (Correlation or ICC)
Individual differences in T&P should be stable and consistent
Rank order consistency (not absolute or mean value)
Over more than ~30 days, however, you might expect genuine
change
For broad-band traits (e.g., neuroticism) long-term coefficients of
~.70 (.55 to .85) or about 50% variance
Reliability (Alpha and Test-Retest)
Sets an upper limit on the magnitude of correlations with external
measures
Can be enhanced by aggregation (increase the number of
measurements)