Liu, T., Moeller, S. K., Ode, S., & Robinson, M. D. (2013). Neuroticism as Distancing: Perceptual Sources of Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 907-920.
Which perspective of personality did the authors take?
In both study 3 and 4, the researchers focus on how neuroticism (one of the five traits according to Eysenck) influences individuals’ perceptions of stimuli with positive or negative valence. A biological perspective is also evident in the fact that high neuroticism is dependent on an individual having an overactive sympathetic nervous system, thus a higher tendency for anxiety. The biological factor influences how each participant responds to the stimuli presented in both studies (De Young, 2010).
What kind of design did the two studies use? Experimental or correlational? Why?
In both studies, the researchers used the correlational design. According to Eysenck (2004), the approach involves the identification of links between high neuroticism levels in individuals and avoidance motivation. In the first part, the participants’ neuroticism levels were tested using the Goldberg broad bandwidth scale; this is because people with high neuroticism levels tend to be chronic avoiders with regard to perception. The second part of the study seeks to identify the connection between the participants’ neuroticism score and their potential valence effects in size perception. It occurred through the systematic manipulation of word valence. Thus, a positive correlation between neuroticism and avoidance was evident in the fact that individuals with high neuroticism perceived the stimuli to be smaller in comparison to those with low neuroticism.
Study 4 focuses on analyzing the correlation between neuroticism and dynamic distance perceptions. Unlike in study 3 where the focus was on static perception, study 4 focuses on growing and shrinking stimuli. The results depict a positive correlation between neuroticism levels and dynamic perceptual processes. It is evident in the fact that participants with high neuroticism perceived stimuli to be growing more slowly (towards them) and shrinking faster (away from them) whether they had positive or negative valence. It is because of the withdrawal, volatility, and anxiety characteristics which drive the individual to avoid or be anxious about new stimuli, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. It is also important to note that the design in both studies is not experimental because it is impossible to manipulate the independent variable (the level of neuroticism in an individual). Personality is a product of a person’s biology and experiences and cannot be easily altered.
Are the studies examining individual differences, intrapersonal processes, or both of them? Why?
The studies examine both individual differences and intrapersonal processes. Individual differences focus on the characteristics or trait that make a person different from another. It is evident in the first section of both studies which focuses on measuring each participant’s level of neuroticism. Knowing which participants have low and those with high neuroticism helps in the analysis of avoidance perception in the second part of both studies. It ensures the individual differences with regard to neuroticism levels are not overlooked in the studies. The second section of both studies focuses on the intrapersonal processes because each participant’s unique personality determines their score in the level of avoidance. It facilitates the prediction of each person’s emotional reactivity to valence (either positive or negative valence).
References
De Young, C. G. (2010). Personality Neuroscience and the Biology of Traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165-1180.
Eysenck, W. (2004). Research Methods: Psychological Inquiry. Psychological Press Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.grajfoner.com/Research%20methods%20paper%20mbff.pdf
Liu, T., Moeller, S. K., Ode, S., & Robinson, M. D. (2013). Neuroticism as Distancing: Perceptual Sources of Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 907-920.
