Quantification choices for individual differences: An example of mapping self-report to psychophysiological responses

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES International Journal of Psychophysiology Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112427
Jayne Morriss , Nicolo Biagi , Shannon Wake
{"title":"Quantification choices for individual differences: An example of mapping self-report to psychophysiological responses","authors":"Jayne Morriss ,&nbsp;Nicolo Biagi ,&nbsp;Shannon Wake","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A popular focus in affective neuroscience research has been to map the relationships between individual differences (e.g. personality and environmental experiences) and psychophysiological responses, in order to further understand the effect of individual differences upon neurobehavioral systems that support affect and arousal. Despite this trend, there have been a lack of practical examples demonstrating how the quantification of individual differences (e.g. categorical or continuous) impacts the observed relationships between different units of analysis (e.g. self-report &gt; psychophysiological responses). To address this gap, we conducted a two-stage aggregated meta-analysis of self-reported intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and skin conductance responses during threat extinction (k = 18, <em>n</em> = 1006) using different quantification choices for individual differences in self-reported intolerance of uncertainty (continuous, categorical via median split, and categorical via extremes – one standard deviation above/below). Results from the meta-analyses revealed that the different quantification techniques produced some consistent (e.g. higher IU was significantly associated with skin conductance responding during late extinction training) and inconsistent IU-related effects. Furthermore, the number of statistically significant effects and effect sizes varied based on the quantification of individual differences in IU (e.g. categorical, compared to continuous was associated with more statistically significant effects, and larger effect sizes). The current study highlights how conducting different quantification methods for individual differences may help researchers understand the individual difference construct of interest (e.g. characterisation, measurement), as well as examine the stability and reliability of individual difference-based effects and correspondence between various units of analysis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54945,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychophysiology","volume":"205 ","pages":"Article 112427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167876024001314/pdfft?md5=527e64b767d4c4bebe26658bcc844e07&pid=1-s2.0-S0167876024001314-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167876024001314","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A popular focus in affective neuroscience research has been to map the relationships between individual differences (e.g. personality and environmental experiences) and psychophysiological responses, in order to further understand the effect of individual differences upon neurobehavioral systems that support affect and arousal. Despite this trend, there have been a lack of practical examples demonstrating how the quantification of individual differences (e.g. categorical or continuous) impacts the observed relationships between different units of analysis (e.g. self-report > psychophysiological responses). To address this gap, we conducted a two-stage aggregated meta-analysis of self-reported intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and skin conductance responses during threat extinction (k = 18, n = 1006) using different quantification choices for individual differences in self-reported intolerance of uncertainty (continuous, categorical via median split, and categorical via extremes – one standard deviation above/below). Results from the meta-analyses revealed that the different quantification techniques produced some consistent (e.g. higher IU was significantly associated with skin conductance responding during late extinction training) and inconsistent IU-related effects. Furthermore, the number of statistically significant effects and effect sizes varied based on the quantification of individual differences in IU (e.g. categorical, compared to continuous was associated with more statistically significant effects, and larger effect sizes). The current study highlights how conducting different quantification methods for individual differences may help researchers understand the individual difference construct of interest (e.g. characterisation, measurement), as well as examine the stability and reliability of individual difference-based effects and correspondence between various units of analysis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个体差异的量化选择:将自我报告映射到心理生理反应的实例。
情感神经科学研究的一个热门焦点是绘制个体差异(如个性和环境体验)与心理生理反应之间的关系图,以进一步了解个体差异对支持情感和唤醒的神经行为系统的影响。尽管存在这种趋势,但一直缺乏实际案例来证明个体差异的量化(如分类或连续)如何影响不同分析单位(如自我报告 > 心理生理反应)之间的观察关系。为了填补这一空白,我们对自我报告的不确定性不容忍度(IU)和威胁消退期间的皮肤电导反应(k = 18,n = 1006)进行了两阶段汇总荟萃分析,并对自我报告的不确定性不容忍度的个体差异采用了不同的量化选择(连续、通过中位数分割的分类和通过极值的分类--高于/低于一个标准差)。荟萃分析的结果显示,不同的量化技术产生了一些一致的(例如,在晚期消退训练中,较高的 IU 与皮肤电导反应显著相关)和不一致的 IU 相关效应。此外,具有统计学意义的效应数量和效应大小因 IU 个体差异的量化而异(例如,与连续效应相比,分类效应具有更多的统计学意义,效应大小也更大)。本研究强调了采用不同的个体差异量化方法可以帮助研究人员了解所关注的个体差异结构(如特征、测量),以及检查基于个体差异的效应的稳定性和可靠性以及不同分析单位之间的对应关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychophysiology is the official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, and provides a respected forum for the publication of high quality original contributions on all aspects of psychophysiology. The journal is interdisciplinary and aims to integrate the neurosciences and behavioral sciences. Empirical, theoretical, and review articles are encouraged in the following areas: • Cerebral psychophysiology: including functional brain mapping and neuroimaging with Event-Related Potentials (ERPs), Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Electroencephalographic studies. • Autonomic functions: including bilateral electrodermal activity, pupillometry and blood volume changes. • Cardiovascular Psychophysiology:including studies of blood pressure, cardiac functioning and respiration. • Somatic psychophysiology: including muscle activity, eye movements and eye blinks.
期刊最新文献
Influence of transcutaneous electrical stimulation on marksmanship, cognition, and the healthy stress response No aftereffect of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on theta activity during an inter-sensory selective attention task Editorial Board International Organization of Psychophysiology ‘Wired up about self’ - narcissistic traits predict elevated physiological arousal during self-disclosure in conversation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1