Relation between comparative risk, absolute risk, and worry: the role of handedness strength

Whole-brain white matter correlates of personality profiles predictive of subjective well-being

We investigated the white matter correlates of personality profiles predictive of subjective well-being. Using principal component analysis to first determine the possible personality profiles onto which core personality measures would load, we subsequently searched for whole-brain white matter correlations with these profiles. We found three personality profiles that correlated with the integrity of white matter tracts. The correlates of an “optimistic” personality profile suggest (a) an intricate network for self-referential processing that helps regulate negative affect and maintain a positive outlook on life, (b) a sustained capacity for visually tracking rewards in the environment and (c) a motor readiness to act upon the conviction that desired rewards are imminent. The correlates of a “short-term approach behavior” profile was indicative of minimal loss of integrity in white matter tracts supportive of lifting certain behavioral barriers, possibly allowing individuals to act more outgoing and carefree in approaching people and rewards. Lastly, a “long-term approach behavior” profile’s association with white matter tracts suggests lowered sensitivity to transient updates of stimulus-based associations of rewards and setbacks, thus facilitating the successful long-term pursuit of goals. Together, our findings yield convincing evidence that subjective well-being has its manifestations in the brain.

Predicting interactions in handedness research: The role of integrated versus independent dual-processes

Over the past two decades, a new way of looking at handedness has emerged (see Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., & Christman, S. D. (2013). Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-6), with an emphasis on degree (strong/consistent versus mixed/inconsistent) augmenting the traditional emphasis on direction (left versus right) of handedness. Much of this work has focused on main effects: e.g., inconsistent-handers show higher (or lower) performance than consistent-handers. However, many of these "main effects" are actually nested within higher order interactions: e.g., there are no handedness differences in a baseline/control condition, with handedness differences emerging in an experimental condition. Careful examination, though, of these interactions reveals an intriguing and predictable pattern: for integrated dual processes (e.g., episodic memory encoding versus retrieval), the interactions reflect larger effects in inconsistent-, relative to consistent-, handers. For independent, mutually exclusive dual processes (e.g., approach versus withdrawal), the interactions reflect larger effects in consistent-handers. It is argued that these patterns reflect the relative inability of (i) consistent-handers to integrate dual processes, and (ii) inconsistent-handers to keep independent dual processes separate. We also use this same theory to address higher order interactions involving changes in the experimental context as well as other individual difference factors, and make suggestions for future research.

How are lung cancer risk perceptions and cigarette smoking related?-testing an accuracy hypothesis

Background

Subjective risk perception is an important theoretical construct in the field of cancer prevention and control. Although the relationship between subjective risk perception and health behaviors has been widely studied in many health contexts, the causalities and associations between the risk perception of developing lung cancer and cigarette smoking have been inconsistently reported among studies. Such inconsistency may be from discrepancies between study designs (cross-sectional versus longitudinal designs) and the three hypotheses (i.e., the behavior motivation hypothesis, the risk reappraisals hypothesis, and the accuracy hypothesis) testing different underlying associations between risk perception and cigarette-smoking behaviors. To clarify this issue, as an initial step, we examined the association between absolute and relative risk perceptions of developing lung cancer and cigarette-smoking behaviors among a large, national representative sample of 1,680 U.S. adults by testing an accuracy hypothesis (i.e., people who smoke accurately perceived a higher risk of developing lung cancer).

Methods

Data from the U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were analyzed using logistic regression and multivariate linear regression to examine the associations between risk perception and cigarette-smoking behaviors among 1,680 U.S. adults.

Results

Findings from this cross-sectional survey suggest that absolute and relative risk perceptions were positively and significantly correlated with having smoked >100 cigarettes during lifetime and the frequency of cigarette smoking. Only absolute risk perception was significantly associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day among current smokers.

Conclusions

Because both absolute and relative risk perceptions are positively related to most cigarette-smoking behaviors, this study supports the accuracy hypothesis. Moreover, absolute risk perception might be a more sensitive measurement than relative risk perception for perceived lung cancer risk. Longitudinal research is needed in the future to investigate other types of risk perception-risk behavior hypotheses-the behavior motivation and the risk reappraisals hypotheses-among nationally representative samples to further examine the causations between risk perception of obtaining lung cancer and smoking behaviors.

Differences between left- and right-handers in approach/avoidance motivation: influence of consistency of handedness measures

Hand preference is often viewed as a troublesome variable in psychological research, with left-handers routinely excluded from studies. Contrary to this, a body of evidence has shown hand preference to be a useful variable when examining human behavior. A recent review argues that the most effective way of using handedness as a variable, is a comparison between individuals who use their dominant hand for virtually all manual activities (consistent handers) versus those who use their other hand for at least one activity (inconsistent handers). The authors contend that researchers should only focus on degree of handedness rather than direction of preference (left versus right). However, we argue that the field suffers from a number of methodological and empirical issues. These include a lack of consensus in choice of cut-off point to divide consistent and inconsistent categories and importantly a paucity of data from left-handers. Consequentially, researchers predominantly compare inconsistent versus consistent right-handers, largely linked to memory, cognition and language. Other research on response style and personality measures shows robust direction of handedness effects. The present study examines both strength and direction of handedness on self-reported behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) scores, using evidence from a large (N = 689) dataset including more than 200 left-handers. There were degree of handedness effects on BIS and BAS-Fun Seeking, but effects are largely driven by differences between consistent left-handers and other groups. Choice of cut-off point substantively influenced results, and suggests that unless a suitable sample of left-handers is included, researchers clarify that their degree of handedness effects are applicable only to right-handers. We concur that strength of hand preference is an important variable but caution that differences related to consistency may not be identical in right and left-handers.