The activity-specific approach in temperament research in temperament research is a theory related to the temperament structure, that is how temperament traits can be classified and regulated. This approach indicates the separation of features relating to three aspects of activity: the social-verbal, physical and mental aspects of motor. In contrast, all other models of the temperament structure also describe the energetic dimensions (eg, Activity or Extraversion features) but not distinguish features that govern the physical activity of those traits that govern social-verbal or mental activity. However, a person who enjoys doing prolonged and/or intense physical work can tire social conversations very quickly. Likewise, a person who speaks quickly may not have to be able to manipulate objects quickly or perform fast mental calculations.
Video Activity-specific approach in temperament research
Histori
This approach is developed in experimental psychophysiology in studies in adults only and is therefore not used in developmental psychology (in the study and practical application of child temperament).
The first known expression of this idea is in Dodge's work, which studies mental fatigue. Dodge suggests that physical and mental efforts are governed by different neural processes.
This idea was recalled by Vladimir Nebylitsyn, later developed further in differential psychology and psychophysiological experiments from the late 1970s by Rusalov, who worked in Nebylitsyn's laboratory and inherited this laboratory after Nebylitsyn's sudden tragic death). Rusalov proposed a special activity-temperament theory, developed further by his graduate student, Trofimova, in its simplified version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire.
The notion of a temperament structure that separates properties related to aspects of social-verbal, motor-physical and mental behavior is entered by Trofimova in the Functional Neurochemical model of Temperament that links the relationship between monoamine neurotransmitters, neuropeptides and hormonal systems to 12 temperament traits.
Maps Activity-specific approach in temperament research
Temperament model in the activity-specific approach
Model Rusalov
Vladimir Rusalov, who continued the line in research at the Laboratory of Differential Psychophysiology (Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences) initiated by Nebylitsyn and Teplov, recorded the EEG and measured the potential it generated, the absolute threshold in the visual, auditory, and tactile modalities, excitation and mobility in auditory and visual modalities, problem solving in deterministic and probabilistic conditions, resilience in completing tasks, and speed of completion of various tests. Rusalov concludes that temperament traits are activity-specific, ie those that govern aspects of physical, social-verbal and intellectual behavior based on different neurophysiological systems. He pointed out that the energetic level or performance tempo may be different for the same individual when he or she completes three different types of tasks (physical, verbal or intellectual) Rusalov suggests therefore, that individual differences in these three types of activities should be assessed and analyzed using a separate scale.
The Rusalov model shows that temperament structure can be presented as 12 characteristics: 4 aspects of behavior (ergonicity, plasticity, tempo and emotionality), grouped according to three aspects of behavior: motor-physical, social-verbal and intellectual. This model is included in the Expand Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Analysis of data factors received on Russian, Australian, American, Canadian, Canadian-Canadian, Polish-Canadian and Chinese samples confirms the separation between factors related to these three aspects of behavior.
Model Trofimova
Trofimova, who is doing a Ph.D. in Rusalov's laboratory in the early 1990s showed that the nature of impulsivity reflects the speed of initiation of immature behavioral responses (based on emotionality), whereas Tempo and Plasticity are associated with more integrated behavior response speeds. Therefore, he suggests that these three characteristics relate to the speed of integration of an action. Temperature-specific models of activity include Empathy and Sensation that look for characteristics related to orientation and also suggest re-arrangement of Emotional traits. The STQ-77 model is therefore based on the Rusalov model and also on the theory of Luria associated with three neuroanatomic systems (sensory-informational, programming and energetic) that govern human behavior. This model first appeared as a Compact Architecture of the Structure Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77) in 2007. The analysis of STQ-77 data factors received on Russian and Canadian samples confirmed the separation between motor-related factors. physical, social-verbal and mental aspects of behavior.
Furthermore Trofimova reviewed studies in neurophysiology, neurochemistry, clinical psychology and kinesiology and related function of neurotransmitters into 12 features of the STQ-77 model within the framework of the Functional Ensemble of Temperament neurochemical model.
The differences between model Rusalov and Trofimova are:
- choice of grouping temperament traits by dynamic aspects (endurance, integration velocity and orientation), presented as three columns in Figure;
- the presence of orientation-related properties in the model Trofimova not included in the Rusalov model. These traits describe the orientation of a person's behavior with a preference for a particular type of reinforcement: sensation (Seeking), other people's circumstances (Empathy) or knowledge of the cause of natural processes (properties referred to as Sensitivity to Probability).
- structures that differ from the attributes associated with emotionality. The FET regards the characteristics of emotionality as a system that reinforces the three aspects of dynamic behavior presented in three model columns. Amplification of the orientation aspect appears in the nature of Neuroticism; amplification of integration velocity (ie immature integration) emerges as Impulsivity and the amplification of subjective feelings of energetic capacity arises in the nature of self-confidence.
Both models distinguish between the physical and verbal-social aspects of well-defined activities (2 middle rows, 6 characteristics), and consider the mental-related, intellectual aspects of the activity (the top three features of the FET model) organize behavior in probabilistic and complex situations. These differences are in line with neuroanatomic localization of control over motor coordination (via the parietal cortex), verbal function (via the left temporal cortex) and mental function (via the frontal cortex).
Comparison with other temperament models
The preceding model of the temperament structure does not distinguish between behavioral behavioral traits in different areas of activity. They consider, for example, energetic capacity in motor and social activities (extraversion or Strength of the nervous system) based on a nonspecific common passion of the nervous system. Many models of temperament and personality follow the so-called "general arousal" approach, given only one common trait associated with the energetic component of behavior: "excitation power" (Pavlov, Jan Strelau) "liveliness", "vigilance" (Cattell)), extraversion (Eysenck, the Five-Factor model in personality), "activity" (Heymans, Buss & Plomin, 1984; Rothbart, et al., 2000), behavioral system approaches (Gray), persistence drives (Telegen, 1985) "passion." "(Mehrabian, 1996) However, it seems" obvious "that someone who, for example, demonstrates the ability for long, intense communication not always able to maintain a long and intense physical or mental work.
In addition, early temperament models (offered by Pavlov, Eysenck, Gray) were initially developed through animal studies under relatively deterministic conditions using an insensitive statistical method that could not explain individual differences in complex probabilistic human behavior. Therefore, these models lose the social and mental specifications of human activity. Activity-specific approaches suggest that separate regulation of mental and physical activity in the nervous system should be reflected in the separation of traits related to various aspects of behavior. This means that models of animal temperaments should be enhanced by the properties associated with specific human activities.
Here, however, there is an overlap of temperament traits described in the activity-specific and alternative model of temperament:
- The temperament nature of the FET model reflects three aspects of formal-dynamic behavior (energetic, dynamic/integration speed, and orientational) in line with the separation between energetic and temperament traits of temperament in traditional Pavlovian experiments (Pavlov, Teplov & Nebylitsyn , Rusalov, Strelau).
- The direction/orientation setting characteristics described by the FET model are in line with the Introversion and Extraversion Jung theories. This theory describes the first type as sensitivity, behavioral orientation to internal thought (analogue of the FET from Sensitivity to Probability) whereas the second Jungian type describes the orientation of socialization with others, or the type of social sensitivity. The FET model borrows ideas about the biological-based nature of Sensation seeking from Zuckerman's Sensation search concept (1994). The analogues of the temperament properties of Empathy and Sensation Seeking in the STQ-77/FET model are described by Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) as "toughmindedness" and "non-conformity" (aspects of the Psychoticism factor); Cloninger (et al., 1994) ("new search"); S. Eysenck (1985) ("venturesomeness" and "empathy"), Taylor and Morrison (1992) ("sympathetic-indifferent," "responsive-obstructed", "objective"), Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans (2000). ) ("sensitivity orientation"), and Baron-Cohen (2003) ("systemization" and "empathy").
- Similar to the FET model, some other temperament models incorporate characteristics related to social activities that are separate from physical (general) activity. The second version of the Eysenck Extraversion scale of the EPI separates Sociability (as an energetic component of social activity) and Impulsivity items. In 1985, Eysenck and Eysenck improved their 2-factor model (extraversion and neuroticism), adding Psychotism as a temperamental trait that describes compliance issues with social expectations. This model was once again upgraded to the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP), which has 21 sub-characteristics grouped into the initial 3 Eysenck factors (1995). The Buss and Plomin temperament studies with infants are based on the EAS model, which includes Activity and Sociability as separate factors (Buss & Plomin, 1984), and the same separation is offered in Zuckerman (2002) 5-factor model. Mehrabian (1996) offers a model of three-dimensional temperament, which in addition to the two basic dimensions of "Arousal" and "Pleasure-Displeasure" (emotionality) has dimensions that describe social behavior as "Domination-Submissive". The same dimensions (social activity and Domination-Submiss) are used by Taylor and Morrison (1992).
- the nature of the temperament that governs behavior at two levels of emergency situations, related to different levels of emotional responses are classically described as two groups: Emotional and Activity/Energy. The combination of two extremes in these two basic dimensions is used to describe the classical type of Hippocrates-Galen 'four classic temperament since the late 18th century, in the works of Kant, Heymans, Wundt, Stern, Pavlov, Adler, Foreigners, Lasursky, Kretschmer and Sheldon. After the ARAS and limbic functions associated with physical and emotional stimulation, Eysenck named these gold partners as 'Extraversion' and 'Neuroticism', followed by Thayer, Watson and Tellegen and the Big Five personality model. Two emotional dispositions, Neuroticism and Self-Confidence are described from 1970-1980 in a number of Approach/Withdrawal (A/W) models (Akiscal, Gray, Simonov, Thomas & Chess, Windle & Lerner).
Similarly to this approach, other models also describe at least three levels of control. For example, Ortony, Norman, and Revelle distinguish between "reactive" (by analogy with the emotional nature), "routine" (by analogy with "deterministic", or well-studied traits) and "reflective" (by analogy to "contextual" , or "probabilistic" traits) level of behavioral regulation.
Criticism and improvement
The benefit of the activity-specific approach of the Rusalov temperament model does not mean, however, that this model is complete. Several analytic studies of STQ factors consistently show that the three Emotional scales of STQ (Motor Emotionality, Social Emotionality and Intellectional Emotionality) are not specific activities such as Ergonicity, Plasticity and Tempo scale and are essentially one of the factors
Trofimova suggested that Rusalov's 12-trait temperament model can be reworked into another 12-trait temperament model that unites the three properties of Emalionality Rusalov in one dimension of neuroticism. In addition, Trofimova demonstrated that intellectual activity uses contextual differentiation of contextual information while activity tempos use clearer, more well-defined and well-defined behavioral elements. For this reason the Tempo Intellectual scale in the Rusalov model may reflect the tempo of the cognitive element of pre-learning but not the analytic activity. Trofimova suggested that only the scale of Motor and Tempo Social-verbal (but Tempo Intellectual) must remain in the model while the generation speed of integration of undefined behavior should be called Plasticity. By the same logic, Motor and Social Plasticity represent the manipulation of well-defined behavioral elements and these traits describe aspects related to tempo and not plasticity. For this reason Trofimova suggests considering only one and not three types of Plasticity and two Tempo types. The Rusalov model also lost the scale of Impulsivity, Self-Confidence, sensation searching, and empathy - but this scale was added in STQ-77 and Ensemble of Temperament Functional models.
Apps
The activity-specific approach in temperament is used in:
- organizational psychology in the vocational assessment related to recommended staffing and fitness placements for various jobs.
- clinical psychology as a framework for new versions of DSM or ICD. Clinical studies conducted by the FET/STQ-77 model show that the activity-specific temporal model corresponding to the mental disorder symptoms structure described in the main classification is much better than other temperament models, and is able to distinguish between anxiety and depression
- differential psychology and general psychological assessment of the most consistent, biologically based nature.
References
External links
- /Structure of the Temperament Questionnaire
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments