Jump to content

Activity-specific approach in temperament research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChopSticksChan (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 15 April 2016 (copy edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. Activity-specific approach in temperament research explores the idea that human temperament traits are expressed differently in physical, social-verbal, and mental aspects of activities. For example, someone who enjoys performing prolonged and/or intense physical work might tire of social conversations very quickly; likewise, a fast-talking person might not necessarily be able to manipulate objects swiftly or perform rapid mental calculations.

History

This approach was developed with experimental psychophysiology in studies on adults only and therefore was not used in developmental psychology (in studies and practical applications of children’s temperament).

First known expression of this idea was in the work of Dodge [1], who studied mental fatigue. Dodge suggested that physical and mental efforts are regulated by different nervous processes.

This idea was verbalized again by Nebylitsyn [2], then further developed in differential psychology and psychophysiology experiments from the late 1970’s by Rusalov [3], [4],[5] [6]) in his activity-specific theory of temperament and by Trofimova in her Compact version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire [5] [7] [8] [9] [10]

The structure of temperament separating the traits related to social-verbal, motor-physical and mental aspects of behavior was incorporated in the neurochemical model Functional Ensemble of Temperament that links the relationships between monoamine neurotransmitters, neuropeptides and hormonal systems to the 12 temperament traits. [11]

Models of temperament within the Activity-specific approach

Rusalov`s model

Rusalov, who inherited the Laboratory of Differential Psychophysiology (Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences) from Nebylitsyn and Teplov, recorded EEGs and measured evoked potential, absolute threshold in visual, auditory, and tactile modalities, strength of excitation and mobility in auditory and visual modalities, problem solving in deterministic and probabilistic conditions, endurance in solving the tasks, and the speed of solving a variety of tests. Rusalov concluded that temperament traits are activity-specific: the energetic level or tempo of performance might differ for the same individual when engaged in physical, social [3] or intellectual activities [4]. Therefore, aspects of performance in these activities should be assessed and analyzed separately according to these three types of activity at least.

File:RusalovSTQ.JPG
Rusalov`s model of the structure of temperament.

Rusalov`s model suggests that the structure of temperament can be presented as 12 traits: 4 aspects of behaviour (Ergonicity (endurance), Plasticity, Tempo and Emotionality), which are grouped by three aspects of behavior: motor-physical, social-verbal and intellectual. This model was incorporated in Extended Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. The factor analysis of the data received on Russian, Australian, American, Canadian, Urdu-Canadian, Polish-Canadian and Chinese samples confirmed a separation between the factors related to these three aspects of behavior. [4] [5] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Trofimova`s model

Trofimova, who was doing her Ph.D. in Rusalov’s lab in early 1990s suggested that the trait of Impulsivity reflects the speed of initiation of immature (emotionality-based) behavioral response, whereas Tempo and Plasticity relate to speed of more integrated behavioural response. She suggested therefore that all three traits relate to speed of an integration of an action. Her alternative activity-specific model of temperament included Empathy and Sensation seeking as orientation-related traits and also suggested a re-arrangement of Emotionality traits [5] [7] [10]. The STQ-77 model is therefore based on Rusalov’s model and also on Luria’s theory related to three neuroanatomic systems (sensory-informational, programming and energetic) regulating human behavior. This model first appeared as an architecture of the Compact version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77) in 2007 <ref=Manual/>. The factor analysis of the STQ-77 data received on Russian and Canadian samples confirmed a separation between the factors related to motor-physical, social-verbal and mental aspects of behaviour [5] [8].

Subsequently Trofimova reviewed studies in neurophysiology, neurochemistry, clinical psychology and kinesiology and linked functionality of neurotransmitters to the 12 traits of the STQ-77 model in a framework of a neurochemical model Functional Ensemble of Temperament [11] [16]

File:TrofimSTQ.JPG
Trofimova’s model of the structure of temperament ("Functional Ensemble of Temperament").

Trofimova`s STQ-77/FET model suggests that the structure of temperament can be presented also as 12 dynamical aspects of behavior, including their consideration in 3 types of activities. The difference from Rusalov’s model is the choice of dynamical aspects that group the temperament traits.

  • three formal aspects of the construction of an action (endurance, speed of integration and orientation), presented here as three columns.
  • two levels of situational complexity: high level, which benefits from analytic (intellectual) capacities and requires a greater probabilistic tuning of behavior using higher cortical functions, in comparison to low complexity situations, which allow an individual to use well-learned habits (deterministic situations). The top row with three traits of the FET model addresses probabilistic situations (high uncertainty), and the two middle rows of 6 traits relate to the dynamics of well-defined actions of higher certainty or with explicit objects/events.
  • similarly to Rusalov`s model, this model differentiate between physical and verbal-social aspects of well-determined activities, and consider the probabilistic traits of temperament (3 top traits of the FET model) as related to the mental, intellectual aspects of activities. Such differentiation is in line with the neuroanatomic localization of control over motor coordination (via parietal cortex), verbal functions (via left temporal cortex) and mental functions (via frontal cortex).
  • two levels of situational emergency and maturity of behavioural response, associated with the degree of involvement of emotionality (whether or not an emotional amplifier is needed in the case of insufficient capacity to resolve the situation); these two levels divide the traits into the groups of Emotionality (the lower row with 3 traits of the FET model) and Activity (the top 9 traits).

Comparison to other models of temperament

Previous models of temperament did not distinguish among areas of activity, considering, for example, arousal in motor and social activity (Extraversion or Strength of the nervous system) as a nonspecific general activation of the nervous system. On the one hand, it appears “obvious” that a person who, for example, exhibits an ability for long and intense communication is not necessarily able to sustain long and intense physical or mental work. On the other hand, many models of temperament and personality follow a so-called “general arousal” approach, considering only one general trait related to the energetic component of behaviour: “strength of excitation” (Pavlov, Strelau) “liveliness” (Cattell), (extraversion), "activity” (Heymans), approach behavioural system (Gray), drive persistence or just “arousal”.

Moreover, early temperament models (offered by Pavlov, Eysenck, Gray) were originally developed through animal studies under relatively deterministic conditions using insensitive statistical methods that could not explain individual differences in complex probabilistic human behavior. These models therefore missed the social and mental specifics of human activities. The activity-specific approach suggested that the separate regulation of mental and physical activities within the nervous system should be reflected in a separation of traits related to different aspects of behaviour. This meant that animal models of temperament should be upgraded with the traits related to specifics of human activities.

Yet, here is the overlap of the temperament traits described within the Activity-specific and other models of temperament:

  • three formal aspects of the construction of an action (energetic, dynamic and orientational) are in line with the separation between energetic and mobility aspects of temperament noted within the experiments of the Pavlovian tradition (Pavlov, Teplov & Nebylitzyn, Rusalov, Strelau). Regulatory traits of directionality/orientation are line with Jung`s model of temperament, which describes several types of sensitivity and Zuckerman`s concept of Sensation seeking (1994). The choice of these three aspects is also based on Luria`s model of neuroanatomic regulation of human behaviour, which consists of three `blocks`: `programming block`, `energetic block` (which includes two arousal systems: ARAS and limbic system) and `informational`, or sensory block.
  • two levels of situational complexity were reflected in the research on intelligence and abstract vs. concrete thinking.
  • differentiation between physical, verbal-social and mental aspects of activities is similar to Rusalov’s model. Several temperament models included traits related to social activities that were separated from those related to physical (general) activities. The second version of Eysenck’s Extraversion scale of the EPI separated Sociability (as the energetic component of social activities) and Impulsivity items. In 1985, Eysenck and Eysenck upgraded their 2-factor model (Extraversion and Neuroticism), adding Psychoticism as a temperamental trait describing issues of compliance with social expectations. This model was again upgraded to the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP), which had 21 sub-traits grouped into the 3 initial Eysenck factors (1995). Buss and Plomin’s temperament study with infants was based on the EAS model, which included Activity and Sociability as separate factors (Buss & Plomin, 1984), and the same separation was offered in Zuckerman (2002) 5-factor model. Mehrabian (1996) offered a three-dimensional temperament model, which in addition to the two basic dimensions of “Arousal” and “Pleasure-Displeasure” (emotionality) had a dimension describing social behaviour as “Dominance-Submissiveness”. Similar dimensions (Social activity and Dominance-Submissiveness) were used by Taylor and Morrison (1992).

In terms of the social vs. physical external orienting traits (empathy and sensation seeking), late in the 20th century several psychologists included them in their models. Relevant traits were described by Eysenck and Eysenck (1985): “toughmindedness” and “non-conformity” as facets of the temperamental dimension of psychoticism; Cloninger (et al., 1994) (“novelty seeking”); S. Eysenck (1985) (venturesomeness and empathy), Taylor and Morrison (1992) (scales “sympathetic-indifferent”, “responsive-inhibited”, “subjective-objective”), Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans (2000) (“orienting sensitivity”), and Baron-Cohen (2003) (scales of “systemizing” and “empathizing”).

  • two levels of situational emergency, associated with the degree of involvement of emotional response - dividing the traits into the groups of Emotionality and Activity - were identified as being major components of temperament explaining [[Hippocrates` four types in the work of Kant, Heymans, Wundt, Stern, Pavlov, Adler, Stranger, Lasursky, Kretschmer and Sheldon. After the functions of the ARAS and limbic systems were linked to physical and emotional arousal, [[Eysenck named this golden pair `Extraversion` and `Neuroticism`, followed by Thayer, Watson and Tellegen and the Big Five model of personality. Two emotional dispositions, Neuroticism and Self-Confidence were described from the 1970-80s in a number of Approach/Withdrawal (A/W) models (Akiskal, Gray, Simonov, Thomas & Chess, Windle & Lerner).

Critiques and upgrades

The benefits of activity-specific approach of Rusalov's model of temperament do not mean, however, that this model is complete. Several factor analytic studies of the STQ consistently showed that the three Emotionality scales of the STQ (Motor Emotionality, Social Emotionality and Intellectual Emotionality) were not as activity-specific as the Ergonicity (endurance), Plasticity and Tempo scales and basically constituted one factor [4] [5], [12-15],[17]. Trofimova suggested that Rusalov’s 12-trait temperament model can be re-worked into another 12-trait temperament model that unifies the former Rusalov’s three traits of Emotionality in one dimension of Neuroticism.

Moreover, Trofimova pointed out that intellectual activity uses analytic differentiation of contextual information whereas a tempo of activity uses more explicit, readily available and well-defined behavioral elements. For this reason the scale of Intellectual Tempo within Rusalov’s model might reflect a tempo of pre-learned cognitive elements but not an analytic activity. Trofimova suggested that only the scales of only Motor and Social-verbal Tempo, but Intellectual Tempo should stay in the model whereas a speed of generation of less-defined behavioral integration should be called Plasticity. By the same logics Motor and Social Plasticity represent manipulation of well-defined behavioral elements and these traits describe therefore tempo- and not plasticity-related aspects. For this reason Trofimova suggested to consider only one and not three types of Plasticity and two types of Tempo [5] [7] [8][11]. Rusalov’s model was also missing the scales of Impulsivity, Self-Confidence, Sensation seeking, and Empathy – but these scales were added in the STQ-77 and the Functional Ensemble of Temperament model.

Applications

Activity-specific approach in temperament was employed in:

  • organizational psychology in vocational assessments related to recommended placement of staff and fitness for various jobs [5].
  • clinical psychology as a framework for new versions of DSM or ICD. Clinical studies conducted the FET/STQ-77 models showed that the activity-specific model of temperament matches the structure of symptoms of mental disorders described in main classifications much better than other temperament models, and is capable of differentiating between anxiety and depression [9], [18] [19] [20]
  • differential psychology and general psychological assessment of most consistent, biologically based traits [5].

/ Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

References

  1. ^ Dodge, R. (1917) The laws of relative fatigue. The Psychological Review, 14, 89-113.
  2. ^ Nebylitsyn, V. D. (1976) Psycho-physiologicheskie issledovania individual’niy raslichiy [Psycho-physiological studies of individual differences]. Collection of papers in memory of V. Nebylitsyn. Moscow, Russia: Nauka.
  3. ^ a b Rusalov, VM (1989). "Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament". Personality and individual differences. 10: 817–827.
  4. ^ a b c d Rusalov, VM (1997). Oprosnik formal’no-dynamicheskih svoystv individual’nosti. [Questionnaire of formal-dynamical properties of individual. Manual. Moscow: IPRAN.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i Rusalov, VM; Trofimova, IN (2007). Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.
  6. ^ Trofimova (2009) Exploration of the benefits of an activity-specific test of temperament. Psychological Reports, 105, 643-658
  7. ^ a b c Trofimova, IN (2010). "Questioning the "general arousal" models". Open Behavioral Science and Psychology. 4: 1–8. doi:10.2174/1874230001004010001.
  8. ^ a b c Trofimova, IN (2010). "An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality". American Journal of Psychology. 123(4): 467–480. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467.
  9. ^ Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2010). The lability of behavior as a marker of comorbid depression and anxiety. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 1, 3, 190-199. doi:10.4236/abb.2010.13027
  10. ^ a b Trofimova, IN; Sulis, W (2011). "Is temperament activity-specific? Validation of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire – Compact (STQ-77)". International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 11(3): 389–400.
  11. ^ a b c Trofimova, IN (2016). "The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of adult temperament". In: Arnold, M.C. (Ed.) Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: 77–147.
  12. ^ Trofimova, I. (2010). Exploration of the activity-specific model of temperament in four languages. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 10, 1, 79-95
  13. ^ Dumenci, L. (1996) Factorial validity of scores on the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 487-493. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. ^ Bishop, D., Jacks, H., & Tandy, S. B. (1993) Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): Results from a US sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 485-487.
  15. ^ Bishop, D., & Hertenstrein, M. (2004) A confirmatory factor analysis of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 1019-1029
  16. ^ Trofimova, I. & Robbins, T.W. (2016) Temperament and arousal systems: a new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 382–402. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.008
  17. ^ Dumenci, L. (1995) The relation between the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire and other personality domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 850-857. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  18. ^ Trofimova I.N. & Sulis W (2016). Benefits of distinguishing between physical and social-verbal aspects of behaviour: an example of generalized anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:338. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00338
  19. ^ Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2016). There is more to mental illness than just negative affect: comprehensive temperament profiles in depression and generalized anxiety. Clinical Psychological Science
  20. ^ Trofimova, I. & Christiansen, J. (2016). Coupling of temperament traits with mental illness in four age groups. Psychological Reports, 118, 2, doi:10.1177/0033294116639430
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activity-specific_approach_in_temperament_research&oldid=715421507"