DOCSLIB.ORG

Predicting Cognitive Control from Preschool to Late Adolescence And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predicting Cognitive Control from Preschool to Late Adolescence And PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Predicting Cognitive Control From Preschool to Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood Inge-Marie Eigsti,1 Vivian Zayas,2 Walter Mischel,3 Yuichi Shoda,4 Ozlem Ayduk,5 Mamta B. Dadlani,6 Matthew C. Davidson,7 J. Lawrence Aber,8 and B.J. Casey7 1Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut; 2Department of Psychology, Cornell University; 3Department of Psychology, Columbia University; 4Department of Psychology, University of Washington; 5Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley; 6Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; 7Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; and 8Steinhardt School of Education, New York University ABSTRACT—In this longitudinal study, the proportion of individual differences in cognitive control seem to be evident as time preschoolers directed their attention away from re- early as 18 months of age (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, warding stimuli during a delay-of-gratification task was 1994), the degree to which these differences in early life predict positively associated with efficiency (greater speed without cognitive control later in life has not been assessed. The present reduced accuracy) at responding to targets in a go/no-go longitudinal investigation examined this ability with the delay- task more than 10 years later. The overall findings suggest of-gratification task in preschoolers and the go/no-go paradigm that preschoolers’ ability to effectively direct their atten- when they became adolescents and young adults. Both tasks tion away from tempting aspects of the rewards in a delay- require the individual to effectively control attentional and of-gratification task may be a developmental precursor for behavioral responses to salient information, a hallmark of cog- the ability to perform inhibitory tasks such as the go/no-go nitive control and cognitive development (Casey, Durston, & task years later. Because performance on the go/no-go task Fossella, 2001). has previously been characterized as involving activation Many developmental studies have shown that cognitive con- of fronto-striatal regions, the present findings also suggest trol becomes more efficient (i.e., faster and more accurate) with that performance in the delay-of-gratification task may development (Keating & Bobbitt, 1978), not reaching full ma- serve as an early marker of individual differences in the turity until after age 12 (Passler, Isaac, & Hynd, 1985). The functional integrity of this circuitry. increase in efficiency from early childhood to adolescence is marked by a decrease in an individual’s susceptibility to inter- ference from competing information (e.g., Casey, Tottenham, & Cognitive control is the foundation of the ability to guide and Fossella, 2002). To study cognitive control in children and control behavior and optimize outcomes (Braver & Cohen, 2001; adolescents, researchers have used a range of tasks, including Miller & Cohen, 2001). When individuals perform tasks in the Stroop-like (Tipper, Bourque, Anderson, & Brehaut, 1989), di- service of a desired goal, cognitive control enables them to rected-forgetting (Harnishfeger & Bjorkland, 1993), and go/no- suppress attention and responses to irrelevant information, even go tasks (Luria, 1961). In the go/no-go task, a well-studied when that information is highly salient (Allport, 1987). Although measure of cognitive control, participants are instructed to re- spond to target stimuli, but to refrain from responding to non- target stimuli. Children ages 7 to 12 show greater difficulty than Address correspondence to Inge-Marie Eigsti, Department of Psy- chology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Rd., Unit 1020, adults on this task (twice as many errors overall and slower re- Storrs, CT 06269, e-mail: [email protected]. action time; Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002). Moreover, 478 Copyright r 2006 Association for Psychological Science Volume 17—Number 6 I.-M. Eigsti et al. parametrically increasing the number of target (go) stimuli pre- existing research (e.g., Rothbart et al., 1994) suggests that ceding a nontarget (no-go) stimulus has been shown to increase prefrontal circuitry may account for individual differences in the the task difficulty. Specifically, as the number of preceding ability to effectively and flexibly deploy attention during this consecutive go trials increases, people show a greater proportion task (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004). Thus, circumstantial evidence of false alarms to no-go trials (Durston, Thomas, Worden, Yang, & indicates that performance in the delay-of-gratification and Casey, 2002) and longer reaction times to go trials (Liston et al., go/no-go tasks reflects similar biological and neural systems. 2006). This manipulation provides a particularly sensitive probe In the present study, we examined whether the proportion of of developmental changes in attentional control (Durston, Tho- time preschoolers spent directing attention toward tempting mas, Yang, et al., 2002; Liston et al., 2006). stimuli in the delay-of-gratification task would predict their Performance in the classic delay-of-gratification task has performance on a go/no-go task when the same individuals were been shown to reflect preschoolers’ ability to control their at- late adolescents and young adults. Previous longitudinal work tention in the face of temptation (Mischel, 1974; Mischel, (Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004) has demonstrated that Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). In this paradigm, preschoolers try to individual differences in executive functioning, including at- postpone immediate gratification in order to attain a more valued tention deployment in delay tasks, are relatively stable between outcome later (e.g., two cookies instead of just one). Research the ages of 24 and 39 months. However, the extent to which using this paradigm has provided compelling evidence for individual differences in early life predict abilities in late meaningful individual differences in cognitive control (Ro- adolescence and young adulthood has not yet been examined. driguez, Mischel, & Shoda, 1989). Although some children are We hypothesized that compared with preschoolers who focused able to wait the entire 15-min period in order to obtain the more on the salient and tempting aspects of the delay situation (in- valued reward, other children are not. Extensive research has dividuals with high temptation focus), those who were able to shown that a key ingredient of success in the delay situation is focus their attention away from those features (individuals with the ability to allocate attention strategically during the waiting low temptation focus) would later be more able to focus on the period (Mischel et al., 1989). Specifically, those children who task demands of the go/no-go task (i.e., responding to targets but are able to direct their attention away from the reward-related not to distractors), as indexed by faster reactions to go trials and stimuli in the task (low temptation focus) are able to wait longer fewer false alarms to no-go trials. The number of consecutive go than those children who direct their attention toward the reward- trials preceding a no-go trial was used to increase the tendency related stimuli (high temptation focus). to respond and thus the need for cognitive control, as discussed The delay-of-gratification task has been widely studied, in in more detail in the Method section. Thus, we predicted that part, because 4-year-olds’ performance in this task is diagnostic individual differences in cognitive control would be most visible of consequential long-term outcomes, including adaptive social, in conditions in which cognitive demands were highest (i.e., cognitive, and emotional functioning in adulthood. For example, when multiple consecutive go trials preceded a no-go trial). 4-year-old children who are more successful at waiting in the delay-of-gratification situation have been found to be more at- METHOD tentive, to be better able to concentrate, and to exhibit greater self-control and frustration tolerance than their peers when they Participants are adolescents (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Shoda, Mis- Fifteen females and 19 males participated in a delay-of-grati- chel, & Peake, 1990). They also score higher on the SATand are fication assessment when they were approximately 4 years of age perceived as more interpersonally competent by parents and (mean age 5 4 years 10 months, SD 5 3 months; range 5 4.33– peers (Mischel et al., 1989). As adults, they are less likely to use 5.25 years). At follow-up, they were approximately 14 years drugs (Ayduk et al., 2000). older (mean age 5 18 years 2 months, SD 5 3 years 3 months; It is noteworthy that there are significant procedural differ- range 5 11.36–22.82 years old). The mean estimated IQ of the ences in the delay-of-gratification task and the go/no-go task. participants, based on subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Nevertheless, the two paradigms share a fundamental feature: In Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1999), was 119 (SD 5 10, both tasks, performance requires controlling a prepotent re- range 5 105–138). Written consent (and assent when appli- sponse, whether it is producing a behavioral response in the go/ cable) was obtained prior to testing, and procedures followed all no-go task or attending to the temptations in the delay-of-grat- applicable guidelines for human research subjects. ification task. Performance on the two tasks may rely, in part, on similar neural circuitry. The go/no-go paradigm has been linked Procedure to the development of fronto-striatal and related circuitry (Booth et al., 2003; Casey, Trainor, Orendi, et al., 1997; Durston, Delay-of-Gratification Situation Thomas, Worden, et al., 2002; Vaidya et al., 1998). Although no At age 4, each participant was asked by a female experimenter to empirical study has directly examined the neural and biological indicate a preference for either a smaller reward (e.g., one basis of performance in the delay-of-gratification paradigm, cookie) or a larger reward (e.g., two cookies). Each child Volume 17—Number 6 479 Delay of Gratification and Cognitive Control selected the larger reward.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Management 7421 Self-Leadership for Executives Spring 2010 Professor COURSE PROCEDURES
    Management 7421 Self-Leadership for Executives Spring 2010 Professor Robert W. Renn, Ph.D. Department of Management Office: 305 BB Phone: 678-2886 E-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: By appointment Textbooks: Christopher Neck & Charles Manz. 2010. Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence . 5th Edition, Pearson Prentice-Hall. Linda Elder & Richard Paul. 2007. The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking . Foundation for Critical Thinking. www:criticalthinking.org. Course Description : This course covers major theories, concepts, and principles of self-leadership. In addition, it applies critical thinking skills to self-leadership theories, concepts, and principles to facilitate deep understanding of self-leadership. Emphasis is given to understanding the overall logic of self-leadership, each stage of the self- leadership process, and to applying critical thinking skills to each element within each stage of self-leadership. Each student will prepare a self-leadership action plan, and individual studies will be pursued with group analysis and discussion at regular class meetings. Course Objectives 1. To create an interest in and develop an awareness of self-leadership. 2. To provide an opportunity to explore, discuss and analyze major theories, concepts, and principles of self- leadership. 3. To provide an opportunity to learn and apply critical thinking skills to the major theories, concepts, and principles of self-leadership. 4. To assist graduate students with learning the application of self-leadership skills. 5. To develop a self-leadership action plan. COURSE PROCEDURES General. This is a seminar course. It requires high involvement, self-motivation, and a willingness to assume an active role in your own learning and self-leadership development.
    [Show full text]
  • Melike Acar 1
    Melike Acar CURRICULUM VITAE MELIKE ACAR, PhD Boğaziçi University Center for Educational Policy Studies ETA-B #602 Bebek, Istanbul 34342 E-mail: [email protected] +90 212 359-4821 PERSONAL DATA Telephone: +90 532 703-9455 Address: Anafartalar Sk. 4/9 Yesilkoy, Istanbul 34149 EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley 2005-2011 PhD. in Human Development and Education Advisors: Elliot Turiel, Susan Holloway, Kaiping Peng Subfields: 1) Moral and ethical studies and their relation to education 2) Social and cognitive development 3) Family interactions in cultural context Thesis: Concepts of Morality, Personal Autonomy, and Parental Authority in Multifaceted Social Issues: An Examination of Daughters’ and Mothers’ Reasoning in Religious and Secular Istanbul, Turkey San Francisco State University 2002-2005 MA in Developmental Psychology Advisor: Linda Juang Thesis: Perceived self-efficacy beliefs and family environment among Turkish and American college students Boğaziçi University B.A. in Psychological Counseling and Guidance 1996-2001 Istanbul Cağaloğlu Anadolu Lisesi 1989-1996 COURSES THOUGHT Cognitive Development, San Francisco State University Early Childhood Development and Education, University of California, Berkeley Social Foundations of Education, Bogazici University Life-Span Development, Bogazici University Educational Psychology, Bogazici University Gender & Education, Bogazici University Advanced Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods (graduate level), Bogazici University RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 2014- Researcher at Boğaziçi University Center for Educational Policy Studies. Responsible for collecting and analysis data for the ongoing “Inclusive Education in Turkey” project funded by Bogazici University Scientific Research Projects (BAP). 2009-2010 Fieldwork and interviews with religious and secular women in Istanbul, Turkey 2005- 2006 Involved in Japan-US MOM’s Research Project supervised by Susan Holloway.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Social Support in Computer- Mediated Communication
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330296945 When Chatting About Negative Experiences Helps-and When It Hurts: Distinguishing Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Social Support in Computer- Mediated Communication Article in Emotion · January 2019 DOI: 10.1037/emo0000555 CITATIONS READS 0 96 8 authors, including: David Lee Ariana Orvell The Ohio State University University of Michigan 18 PUBLICATIONS 598 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Susan A Gelman Ozlem Ayduk University of Michigan University of California, Berkeley 318 PUBLICATIONS 15,074 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 5,615 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Money Spending and Saving in Childhood View project Evidence Based Assessment of Traumatized and Bereaved Youth View project All content following this page was uploaded by Ariana Orvell on 17 January 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Emotion When Chatting About Negative Experiences Helps—and When It Hurts: Distinguishing Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Social Support in Computer-Mediated Communication David S. Lee, Ariana Orvell, Julia Briskin, Taylor Shrapnell, Susan A. Gelman, Ozlem Ayduk, Oscar Ybarra, and Ethan Kross Online First Publication, January 10, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000555 CITATION Lee, D. S., Orvell, A., Briskin, J., Shrapnell, T., Gelman, S. A., Ayduk, O., Ybarra, O., & Kross, E. (2019, January 10). When Chatting About Negative Experiences Helps—and When It Hurts: Distinguishing Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Social Support in Computer-Mediated Communication. Emotion. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000555 Emotion © 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejection Sensitivity and the Defensive Motivational System
    PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Rejection Sensitivity and the Defensive Motivational System Insights From the Startle Response to Rejection Cues Geraldine Downey,1 Vivian Mougios,2 Ozlem Ayduk,3 Bonita E. London,1 and Yuichi Shoda4 1Columbia University; 2Long Island University; 3University of California, Berkeley; and 4University of Washington ABSTRACT––Rejection sensitivity (RS) is the disposition to anx- Why do people who anxiously expect rejection behave in ways that iously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection. lead to the realization of their worst fears? Our view is that the RS This study used the startle probe paradigm to test whether the dynamic functions to defend the self against rejection by significant affect-based defensive motivational system is automatically ac- others and social groups. To the extent that the individual has expe- tivated by rejection cues in people who are high in RS. Stimuli rienced the pain of rejection, protecting the self from rejection while were representational paintings depicting rejection (by Hopper) maintaining close relationships will become an important goal, and a and acceptance (by Renoir), as well as nonrepresentational self-defensive system such as RS will develop to serve it. However, paintings of either negative or positive valence (by Rothko and this system becomes dysfunctional to the extent that it gets elicited Miro, respectively). Eyeblink startle magnitude was potentiated automatically with minimal rejection cues and sets in motion the in people high in RS when they viewed rejection themes, com- precise actions that ultimately lead to the fulfillment of expectations of pared with when they viewed nonrepresentational negative rejection (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Distancing Improves Interpersonal Perceptions and Behavior by Decreasing Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity During the Provision of Criticism Jordan B
    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2017, 534–543 doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw168 Advance Access Publication Date: 26 December 2016 Original article Self-distancing improves interpersonal perceptions and behavior by decreasing medial prefrontal cortex activity during the provision of criticism Jordan B. Leitner,1 Ozlem Ayduk,1 Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton,1 Adam Magerman,2 Rachel Amey,2 Ethan Kross,3 and Chad E. Forbes2 1Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA, and 3Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Jordan B. Leitner, Department of Psychology, University of California, 3210 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Previous research suggests that people show increased self-referential processing when they provide criticism to others, and that this self-referential processing can have negative effects on interpersonal perceptions and behavior. The current research hypothesized that adopting a self-distanced perspective (i.e. thinking about a situation from a non-first person point of view), as compared with a typical self-immersed perspective (i.e. thinking about a situation from a first-person point of view), would reduce self-referential processing during the provision of criticism, and in turn improve interpersonal perceptions and behavior. We tested this hypothesis in an interracial context since research suggests that self-referential processing plays a role in damaging interracial relations. White participants prepared for mentorship from a self-immersed or self-distanced perspective. They then conveyed negative and positive evaluations to a Black mentee while electroence- phalogram (EEG) was recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • Vivian Zayas Curriculum Vitae
    Vivian Zayas Curriculum Vitae Department of Psychology voice number: (607) 254-6332 Cornell University fax number: (607) 255-8433 238 Uris Hall email: [email protected] Ithaca, New York 14853-7601 Academic Website: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/people/Faculty/vz29.html Lab Website: http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~pac_lab Professional Positions 2013 – present Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Cornell University 2007 – 2013 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Cornell University 2005 – 2006 Research Scientist, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 2003 – 2005 Research Associate, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Education 2003 Ph. D., Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, with distinction Major Area: Social and Personality Psychology 2000 M. S., Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle 1994 B. A., Psychology, Cornell University Research Interests Social Cognition, Attachment, Relationships, First Impressions, Social Exclusion, Personality Honors and Awards Nominated for the Kendall S. Carpenter Memorial Advising Award, 2018 Robert A. and Donna B. Paul Award for Excellence in Advising, 2018 Institute for the Social Sciences (ISS) Faculty Fellow, 2018-2019 *** Fellowships are awarded to “Cornell’s most promising assistant and associate professors.” 4 fellowships were awarded to associate professors from Cornell. *** http://socialsciences.cornell.edu/fellows/ Knowledge Matters Fellowship, 2017 Nominated by department for the Paul Teaching Award, 2017 Named by SPSP Diversity award-winners as most admired
    [Show full text]
  • White, R., Kuehn, M. M., Kross, E., & Ayduk, O
    Emotion Focusing on the Future From Afar: Self-Distancing From Future Stressors Facilitates Adaptive Coping Rachel E. White, Maya M. Kuehn, Angela L. Duckworth, Ethan Kross, and Özlem Ayduk Online First Publication, September 17, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000491 CITATION White, R. E., Kuehn, M. M., Duckworth, A. L., Kross, E., & Ayduk, Ö. (2018, September 17). Focusing on the Future From Afar: Self-Distancing From Future Stressors Facilitates Adaptive Coping. Emotion. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000491 Emotion © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 1528-3542/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000491 Focusing on the Future From Afar: Self-Distancing From Future Stressors Facilitates Adaptive Coping Rachel E. White Maya M. Kuehn Hamilton College and University of Pennsylvania University of California, Berkeley Angela L. Duckworth Ethan Kross University of Pennsylvania University of Michigan Özlem Ayduk University of California, Berkeley Prior research indicates that visual self-distancing enhances adaptive self-reflection about negative past events (Kross & Ayduk, 2011). However, whether this process is similarly useful when people reflect on anxiety-provoking future negative experiences, and if so, whether a similar set of mechanisms underlie its benefits in this context, is unknown. Here we addressed these questions using a combination of experimental and individual difference methods with adults and adolescents (total N ϭ 2,344). In Studies 1 and 2, spontaneous self-distancing predicted less anxious emotional reactivity among adults and adolescents. This effect was mediated by differences in how vividly participants imagined a future anxiety-provoking event.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Activity to a Partner's Facial Expression Predicts Self-Regulation After Conflict
    Neural Activity to a Partner's Facial Expression Predicts Self-Regulation After Conflict The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hooker, Christine I., Anett Gyurak, Sara C. Verosky, Asako Miyakawa, and Özlem Ayduk. 2010. “Neural Activity to a Partner’s Facial Expression Predicts Self-Regulation After Conflict.” Biological Psychiatry 67 (5) (March): 406–413. doi:10.1016/ j.biopsych.2009.10.014. Published Version 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.014 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17497807 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Biol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 March 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptPublished NIH-PA Author Manuscript in final edited NIH-PA Author Manuscript form as: Biol Psychiatry. 2010 March 1; 67(5): 406±413. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.014. Neural activity to a partner's facial expression predicts self- regulation after conflict Christine I. Hooker1, Anett Gyurak2, Sara Verosky3, Asako Miyakawa3, and Özlem Ayduk2 1Harvard University, Psychology Department 2University of California at Berkeley, Psychology Department 3University of California at Berkeley, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute Abstract Introduction—Failure to self-regulate after an interpersonal conflict can result in persistent negative mood and maladaptive behaviors. Research indicates that lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) activity is related to the regulation of emotional experience in response to lab-based affective challenges, such as viewing emotional pictures.
    [Show full text]
  • Third-Person Self-Talk Facilitates Emotion Regulation Without Engaging Cognitive Control: Converging Evidence from ERP and Fmri Jason S
    Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without engaging cognitive control: Converging evidence from ERP and fMRI Jason S. Moser, Michigan State University Adrienne Dougherty, University Michigan Ann Arbor Whitney I. Mattson, University Michigan Ann Arbor Benjamin Katz, University Michigan Ann Arbor Tim Moran, Emory University Darwin Guevarra, University Michigan Ann Arbor Holly Shablack, University Michigan Ann Arbor Ozlem Ayduk, University of California John Jonides, University Michigan Ann Arbor Marc G. Berman, University of Chicago Only first 10 authors above; see publication for full author list. Journal Title: Scientific Reports Volume: Volume 7, Number 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group | 2017-12-01 Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF Publisher DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3 Permanent URL: https://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/s3vzf Final published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3 Copyright information: © 2017 The Author(s). This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Accessed September 24, 2021 11:13 AM EDT www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without engaging cognitive control: Received: 7 September 2016 Accepted: 24 May 2017 Converging evidence from ERP and Published: xx xx xxxx fMRI Jason S. Moser1, Adrienne Dougherty2, Whitney I. Mattson2, Benjamin Katz2, Tim P. Moran1,5, Darwin Guevarra2, Holly Shablack2, Ozlem Ayduk3, John Jonides2, Marc G. Berman4 & Ethan Kross2 Does silently talking to yourself in the third-person constitute a relatively effortless form of self control? We hypothesized that it does under the premise that third-person self-talk leads people to think about the self similar to how they think about others, which provides them with the psychological distance needed to facilitate self control.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Program
    SAS Conference § 2015 § Oakland, CA, USA April 9-11, 2015 SOCIETY FOR AFFECTIVE SCIENCE Second Annual Conference § 2015 Final Program Thursday, April 9th Pre-Conference Workshops 4:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (separate registration required for Pre-Conference Workshops) East 1 Opening Session 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Welcome: Room OCC202 Lisa Feldman Barrett, SAS President Emotional and Health Consequences of Early Life Adversity 4:40 p.m.-5:40 p.m. Chair: Richard Lane East 1 Invited Address: 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Neural Circuits for the Regulation of Emotion and Stress Room OCC210 and Risk for Mental Illness Pattern Recognition in Affective Neuroscience Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, University of Heidelberg Chair: Tor Wager Introduced by Joshua Buckholtz, Harvard University 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. 5:45 pm-7:00 pm Room OCC208 East 1 Positive Emotions Panel Discussion: Chair: June Gruber Charles Carver, University of Miami Phoebe Ellsworth, University of Michigan 12:00 noon-7:00 p.m. Dacher Keltner, University of California Berkeley East Foyer Gerald Clore, University of Virginia Registration 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. East 2 East Foyer Reception/Cash Bar and Poster Session A Exhibitor Check-In PAGE 1 SAS Conference § 2015 § Oakland, CA, USA April 9-11, 2015 Friday, April 10th 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 12:45 p.m.-2:00 p.m. East Foyer Area Restaurants (see your ticket for location) Registration Lunch Break–Methods Based Thematic Lunches Organizer: Greg Siegle, University of Pittsburgh 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • For Peer Review
    Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience “Willpower” Over the Life Span: Decomposing Impulse Control For Peer Review Journal: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Manuscript ID: Draft Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript Date Submitted by the Author: Complete List of Authors: Mischel, Walter; Columbia University, Psychology Ayduk, Ozlem; University of California - Berkeley, Psychology Berman, Marc; University of Michigan, Psychology Casey, B. J.; Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology Gotlib, Ian; Stanford, Psychology Jonides, John; University of Michigan, Psychology Kross, Ethan; University of Michigan, Psychology Teslovich, Theresa; Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology Wilson, Nicole; University of Washington - Seattle, Psychology Zayas, Vivian; Cornell University, Psychology Shoda, Yuichi; University of Washington - Seattle, Psychology Keywords: Impulse Control, Delay of Gratification http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Page 1 of 31 Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1 2 3 FOR SPECIAL ISSUE on AGING for SCAN 4 5 6 7 8 “Willpower” Over the Life Span: Decomposing Impulse Control 9 10 11 Walter Mischel 12 13 Columbia University 14 15 Ozlem Ayduk 16 17 18 ForUniversity Peer of California, Review Berkeley 19 20 Marc G. Berman 21 22 University of Michigan 23 24 25 B. J. Casey 26 27 Sackler Institute of Weill Cornell Medical College 28 29 Ian Gotlib
    [Show full text]
  • INCISIVE YET MISUNDERSTOOD Perspectives on Psychological
    Running Head: INCISIVE YET MISUNDERSTOOD Perspectives on Psychological Science, in press Asymmetries in mutual understanding: People with low status, power, and self-esteem understand better than they are understood Sanaz Talaifar, Michael D. Buhrmester, Özlem Ayduk & William B. Swann, Jr., Authors’ Note. We thank Ashwini Ashokkumar, Cliff Burke, and Becca Schlegel for their comments on a prior version of this manuscript. Data, code, study materials, and supplemental materials are available at https://osf.io/x2bgy/. Correspondence may be sent to Sanaz Talaifar at [email protected]. INCISIVE YET MISUNDERSTOOD 2 Abstract All too often, people who develop exceptionally astute insights into others remain mysterious to these others. Evidence for such asymmetric understanding comes from several independent domains. Striking asymmetries occur among those who differ in status and power, such that low status, low power individuals understand more than they are understood. We show that this effect extends to people who merely perceive that they have low status: individuals with low self- esteem. Whereas people with low self-esteem display insight into people with high self-esteem, their high self-esteem counterparts fail to reciprocate. Conceptual analysis suggests that asymmetries in mutual understanding may be reduced by addressing deficits in information and motivation among perceivers. Nevertheless, evidence from several interventions were unsuccessful, indicating that the path to symmetric understanding is a steep and thorny one. Further
    [Show full text]