1. Chapter 7 Physiological Approaches to Personality © M. Guthrie Yarwood1

2. Part Two. Biological Domain © M. Guthrie Yarwood2  Chapter 6: Do our genes influence our personality traits?  Chapter 7:Do our physiological systems (e.g., brain, peripheral nervous system) influence our personality traits?  Chapter 8: How are personality traits adaptive (Evolutionary Theory)?

3. Chapter 7 Outline © M. Guthrie Yarwood3  Physiologically Based Theories of Personality  Eysenck’s PEN Model  Gray’s RST Model  Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Theory  Cloninger’s Tridimensional Personality Model  Recent Research  Gray: Neurotransmitters and Brain Structures  Frontal Asymmetry

4. Eysencks’ PEN Model PsychoticismExtraversionNeuroticism © M. Guthrie Yarwood4

5. ARAS admits little stimulation to brain Feel under- aroused Seek stimulation in environment EXTRAVERT! ARAS admits much stimulation to brain Feel over- aroused Do not seek stimulation in environment INTROVERT! Eysenck’s PEN Model: Extraversion- Introversion © M. Guthrie Yarwood5

6. EPQ-R Items © M. Guthrie Yarwood6  Extraversion  Are you rather lively?Are you a talkative person?  Psychoticism  Would being in debt worry you?  Do you take much notice of what people think?  Neuroticism  Does your mood often go up and down?  Are you an irritable person?  Lie  If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?  Have you ever blamed someone for doing something you knew was really your fault?

7. Eysenck’s PEN Model: Optimal Level of Arousal © M. Guthrie Yarwood7  Eysenck applied Optimal Level of Arousal (Hebb, 1955) to further explain differences between E and I  Level of arousal that is just right for any given task  Varies by individual

8. © M. Guthrie Yarwood8 Low High Low High Level of Stimulation in Environment Performance Level I I E E

9. Testing PEN: 9  Performance  Mild Stimulation (caffeine; Bullock & Gilliland, 1993)  Moderate Stimulation (recorded traffic noise; Belogevic et al., 2001)  Alpha Activity (measures low-levels of arousal; Gale, 1983)  I showed greater alpha activity than E.  Other studies: No differences in resting arousal © M. Guthrie Yarwood

10. I/E, Music, and Performance © M. Guthrie Yarwood10  Music IV Conditions  No Music  High Complexity Instrumental  Low Complexity Instrumental  Personality (PEN): Introverted, Extraverted  DV = reading comprehension  Results  Extravert/Introvert performance not affected by music condition  Other Research found effects for I

11. Eysenck’s PEN Model: Testing the theory © M. Guthrie Yarwood11  No difference in resting levels  Introverts ARE more reactive to moderate levels of stimulation than extraverts  Eysenck Revised – it’s arousability, not resting arousal!

12. Match the Big Five Factors to the PEN factors! ExtraversionNeuroticismConscientiousnessAgreeablenessOpenness to Experience PsychoticismExtraversionNeuroticism © M. Guthrie Yarwood12

13. Gray’s RST Theory: Sensitivity to Reward and Punishment © M. Guthrie Yarwood13  3 Neural Systems 1. Behavioral Activation System (BAS) 2. Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) 3. Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS; previously, FFS)  Textbook: explains Gray’s original RST theory (Gray, 1972, 1975, 1990)  We will discuss his revised theory (Gray, & McNaughton 2000)

14. Gray’s RST Theory: Individual Differences in 3 Systems © M. Guthrie Yarwood14 IMPULSIVITY Motivate people to approach rewarding stimuli BAS ANXIETY During goal conflict, activates BAS or FFFS BIS FEAR Motivate people away from danger FFFS

15. 3 Types of Goal Conflict © M. Guthrie Yarwood15  Approach-Approach  Choose between 2 desirable goals  Avoidance-Avoidance  Choose between two undesirable goals  Approach-Avoidance  Same goal is desirable and undesirable

16. Gray’s RST Theory: BIS Resolves Approach- Avoidance Goal Conflict © M. Guthrie Yarwood16 Reward > Threat BIS engages BAS and inhibits FFFS Approach BehaviorConflict Resolved!

17. Gray’s RST Theory: BIS Resolves Approach- Avoidance Goal Conflict © M. Guthrie Yarwood17 Threat > Reward BIS engages FFFS and inhibits BAS Avoidance BehaviorConflict Resolved!

18. Gray’s RST Theory: Physiological Systems Greater left front cortical activity Cerebral cortex, thalamus, striatum BAS Greater right front cortical activity Brain stem, frontal lobe BIS Sympathetic nervous system FFFS © M. Guthrie Yarwood18

19. Frontal Asymmetry: Does greater activation on one side of the frontal lobe explain individual differences in personality? Frontal Asymmetry: Does greater activation on one side of the frontal lobe explain individual differences in personality? © M. Guthrie Yarwood19

20. Left Frontal Lobe = More behavioral activation than behavioral avoidance Right Frontal Lobe = More behavioral avoidance than behavioral activation Avoid! (Davidson 2002; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998 Zuckerman, 2005) Extraversion Approach! Neuroticism © M. Guthrie Yarwood20 BASBIS

21. How does this relate to mental illness? © M. Guthrie Yarwood21  Left Asymmetry / BAS Activation  Impulsive, over-reactive to rewards  Right Asymmetry / BIS Activation  Anxiety, over-reactive to punishers

22. High BIS? Low BIS? High BAS? Low BAS? 22  Anxiety Disorders  Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder  Bipolar Disorders  ADHD  Conduct Disorder  Substance Abuse  Histrionic Personality Disorder  Avoidant Personality Disorder  Dependent Personality Disorder © M. Guthrie Yarwood

23. Gray’s RST Theory: Bringing It Together High BAS High BIS © M. Guthrie Yarwood23  Extraversion  Positive Emotions  Impulsive; over-reactive to rewards  Externalizing Disorders  Neuroticism  Negative Emotions  Anxiety; Overreactive to punishers  Internalizing Disorders

24. Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking © M. Guthrie Yarwood24  Tendency to seek out thrilling, exciting activities, take risks, avoid boredom  High sensation seekers:  less tolerant of sensory deprivation  Require much stimulation to reach optimal level of arousal  High need for stimulation in their daily lives  Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale-V (SSS-V)  4 Factors

25. © M. Guthrie Yarwood25 (Factors)

26. High or Low Sensation Seeking? © M. Guthrie Yarwood26  Young or old?  Whites or Blacks?  Religious or Not Religious?  College or High School Degree?  Divorced or Married?  Wisconsin or California?  US or France?  Saudi Arabia or Mexico?  Firstborns or laterborns?  Bipolar or Antisocial?

27. Sensation Seeking by US State © M. Guthrie Yarwood27  http://buzz.drkencarter.com/chart.html

28. Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking and MAO © M. Guthrie Yarwood28  Physiological basis for sensation seeking  Monoamine Oxidase (MAO)  Enzyme that maintains a proper level of neurotransmitters  Too little MAO = too much neurotransmitter  Too much MAO = too little neurotransmitter  Negative Correlation b/w MAO level and SS

29. Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking and MAO © M. Guthrie Yarwood29  High sensation seekers have low levels of MAO,  The low MAO, leads to less inhibition of other neurotransmitters  Results in less control over behavior, thoughts, emotions

30. Problems with measure? (Y/N Response) © M. Guthrie Yarwood30  TAS:  I prefer the surface of the water to the depths  I would like to go scuba diving.  ES  I dislike all body odors.  I like some of the earthy body smells.  DIS  I dislike “swingers” (people who are uninhibited about sex)  I enjoy the company of real “swingers”  BS  The worse social sin is to be rude.  The worst social sin is to be a bore.

31. Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking and Big Five 31 TASESDisBSSSS Extraversion.30 ―――.34 Openness to Experience ―.50 ――.37 (Aluja, Garc í a, & Garc í a, 2003) Note. NEO-PI-R used for Big Five measures © M. Guthrie Yarwood

32. Overview: Neurotransmitters and Personality © M. Guthrie Yarwood32  Individuals differences in levels of neurotransmitter cause individual differences in personality. DimensionLevel of Neurotransmitter Novelty SeekingHigh Dopamine Harm AvoidanceAbnormalities in serotonin. Reward DependenceLow Norepinephrine

33. DimensionDescription Novelty Seeking (Active Dopamine) Individual differences in excitability, impulsiveness, extravagance, disorderliness Harm Avoidance (Inactive Serotonin) Individual differences in worry, pessimism fear, shyness, fatigability; tendency to avoid pain and anxiety Low = energetic, outgoing, optimistic High = cautious, inhibited, shy, apprehensive; expect to experience unpleasant events Reward Dependence (Inactive Norepinephrine) Individual differences in sentimentality, warm communication, dependence; tendency to develop strong emotional attachments; persistent in behaving in ways that produce reward. Cloninger’s Tridimensional Personality Model © M. Guthrie Yarwood33

34. Active Dopamine ↑ Response to pleasurable, exciting stimuli High Novelty Seeking Inactive Serotonin ↑ Response to harmful, unpleasant stimuli High Harm Avoidance Inactive Norepinephrine ↑ Response to stimuli previously associated with pleasure High Reward Dependence © M. Guthrie Yarwood34

35. Higher Levels of: OCEAN Serotonin++— Dopamine ++ Testosterone +— Norepinephrine + Oxytocin/ Vasopressin + Blood Glucose+ Gray’s Recent Research (DeYoung & Gray, in press) © M. Guthrie Yarwood35

36. © M. Guthrie Yarwood36

37. Gray’s Recent Research (DeYoung et al., 2010) Big Five Trait Brain StructureCorr. w/ Volume Why? CLateral prefrontal cortex+ Keeping info in working memory and executing planned action E Medial orbitofrontal cortex +Processes info about rewards ACingulate cortex+ Increased ability to understand others’ thoughts (i.e. theory of mind) N Prefontal cortex; hippocampus — Sensitivity to threat and punishment, increased tendency to experience negative emotion; reduced ability to regulate emotions. © M. Guthrie Yarwood37

38. Summary: Neurotransmitters and Personality © M. Guthrie Yarwood38  Gray’s theory links individual differences in personality to  individual differences in levels of neurotransmitters and  Individual differences in the volume of brain structures  Frontal asymmetry is a promising area of research for individual differences in personality  Left-Dominant = tendency to approach  Right-Dominant = tendency to avoid

39. Summary and Evaluation © M. Guthrie Yarwood39  Study of personality can be approached biologically  Two ways to think about how physiological variables are useful in personality theory and research…  Use physiological measures as variables that may be correlated with personality traits  View physiological events as providing causal substrate for personality trait