Process models of Neuroticism

1. Process models of Neuroticism

2. Reading • Part of chapter 10 of 2nd ed of Individual Differences - via Queens Online ONLY. • Browse MW Eysenck (1992) - on consultation • Find other relevant material yourself

3. Recap • Factor analysis may be useful in revealing the structure of personality • It is also important to learn why people vary on these traits: why some are extroverted, some are emotionally stable, etc. • Biological basis of E - last week • Biological basis of N

4. Neuroticism • A ubiquitous personality trait: found by Eysenck, Costa & McCrae, Guilford and just about everyone else. • A high N individual is:– • Anxious, depressed, troubled by guilt, has low self-esteem, is tense, irrational, shy, moody & emotional (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) • Anxious, hostile, depressed, self-conscious, impulsive, feels helpless (Costa & McCrae, 1991)

5. HJ Eysenck’s (1967)biological theory of N • Neuroticism should be highly heritable • Involves the limbic system (‘visceral brain’) - the hippocampus, amygdala, cingulum, septum and hypothalamus: involved in flight & aggression (Gray, 1987) and fear (Davis, 1986) • High N individuals should show more autonomic nervous system activity in stressful conditions than low N people

7. BUT... • N is rather less heritable than E (0.4-ish): see later • Several studies have examined whether high and low N individuals differ in psychophysiological responses to stress - e.g., heart rate, sweating, vasoconstriction, pupil dilation.

9. e.g., i: the skin conductance response (SCR) • Fahrenberg (1987). Measured SCR in people under stress (e.g., interview, blood-taking, cold-pressor test). N was unrelated to SCR! • Naveteur & Baque (1987): litte relation between N and change in SCR.

10. E.g, ii: Heart rate • Myrtek (1984) found nothing • Watkins, Grossman, Krishnan & Sherwood (1998) found that anxiety was related to vagal control of the heart in normals But all in all, a bit messy.

11. Cognition • Stressful situations feel unpleasant, and so people may have evolved different cognitive strategies for dealing with potential threats. • So perhaps consider cognitive as well as biological models of neuroticism?

12. Repressors • Those scoring low on Neuroticism questionnaires may either be;– • genuinely calm & stable, or • Keen to deny/control their emotions (“repressors”) - so low questionnaire scores but high physiological indices. Schwartz (1983). • This may be why the experimental evidence is messy

13. A solution: • Give the Marlowe-Crowne scale as well as N. Repressors: low on N but high on the Marlowe-Crowne. Remove the repressors from the sample before analysing. • Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson (1979)did indeed find that repressors seemed - physiologically & behaviourally - more stressed than high-anxious individuals!

14. Hypervigilance Theory (MW Eysenck, 1992) • High anxious people are constantly looking out for signs of threat.So will:– • Be easily distrated by any stimuli • Use many rapid eye movements • Attend selectively to threat-relevant rather than neutral stimuli • Broaden attention prior to detection of a threat • Then narrow attention when a threat is seen.

15. E.g., MW Eysenck and Byrne (1992) measured RT X X left

16. cat wall right

17. fail fool right

18. Murder Left Stab

19. Found:- • High anxious people are more distracted by threat-related words. • Works for both normal Ss (e.g., Keogh E, French, 1999) and clinical groups (e.g., Dalgleish et al, 2001: post-traumatic stress disorder)

20. Conclusions • HJ Eysenck’s purely biological model of anxiety does not fit the observed facts. • It may be necessary to remove repressors… • ...to continue to study how anxious individuals process threat-related stimuli… • …and to consider their use of strategies (‘coping mechanisms’) for reducing anxiety.