Autonomic lability and neuroticism

Nonspecific activity and habituation of tonic and phasic skin conductance in somatic complainers and controls as a function of auditory stimulus intensity.

“…Specifically, somatic complainers showed reduced fluctuation rates as compared to control subjects. This finding is of particular interest in that several other studies have not found specific relationships between electrodermal lability and neuroticism (Burdick, 1966;Coles et al, 1971;Crider & Limn, 1970;Purohit, 1966), The finding is not, however, surprising in light of habituation results, since a number of investigators have reported substantial positive correlations between resistance to habituation and lability (Corah & Stern, 1963;Crider & Lunn, 1971;Katkin & McCubbin, 1969;Koepke & Pribram, 1966;Stern, Stewart, & Winokur, 1961), A'lore generally, the psychometric specificity of the somatic complainer group in the present study may explain differences between present data and some other attempts to relate psychopathology, habituation, and nonspecific ao jojo R. DICKINSON, Jit, AND BARRY 13. SMITH tivity.…”

“…Some investigators have reported only nonsignificant correlational relationships between electrodermal lability, denned by frequency of nonspecific fluctuation, and self-reported anxiety (Katkin & McCubbin, 1969;Kocpke & Pribram, 1966). Others report that neuroticism is unrelated to either lability (Burdick, 1966;Coles, Gale, & Kline, 1971;Crider & Lunn, 1971;Purohit, 1966) or habituation rate (Lader & Wing, 1966;Mangan & O'Gorman, 1969;Martin, 1960), and Hare (1968) found no difference in orienting response habituation rate between either primary or secondary sociopaths and a control group. On the other hand, some investigators have reported reduced habituation rates in anxiety neurotics (Stewart, Winokur, Stern, Guze, Pfeiffer, & Hornung, 1959), patients with anxiety states (Lader, 1967;Ladcr & Wing, 1964), and subjects high in self-reported neuroticism (Coles etal., 1971;Fried, Friedman, & Welch, 1967).…”

Autonomic arousal, interpersonal climate, and orality.

“…Although Crider and Lunn (1971) have suggested that individual differences in electrodermal lability reflect an important psychological variable, attempts by a number of investigators to identify relevant personality dimensions among normal populations have not produced encouraging or consistent results. On the variable of introversion, for example, both positive (Coles, Gale, & Kline, 1971;Crider & Lunn, 1971;Mangan & O'Gorman, 1969) and negative (Burdick, 1966;Purohit, 1966) results have been reported. With respect to other dimensions of personality, Hastrup and Katkin (1976) examined various combinations of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) items in an effort to develop an empirically based predictor of electrodermal lability and failed.…”

Effects of Electrodermal Lability and Introversion on Vigilance Decrement

“…Since mally stabile subjects than for labile subjects was Eysenck's survey some positive reports of a rela-not a function of changes in signal detection sentionship between introversion and electrodermal sitivity (d') but rather of changes in criterion for lability have appeared (Coles, Gale, & Kline, 1971; reporting of signals (j8), with the stabile subjects Crider & Lunn, 1971;Mangan & O'Gorman, 1969), becoming more cautious (using a higher criterion). ; but several failures to find any relationship have also Parasuraman (1975) also attributed differences in hit : been reported (Burdick, 1966; Hastrup & Katkin, rate to differences in /8 rather than d', but did not 1976; Purohit, 1966;Sostek, 1978). analyze his data with respect to changes over time, i One purpose of the present study was to examine In Sostek's (1978) study, significant declines in d' J vigilance performance of subjects described on both over time were found for the stabile group but not I the electrodermal lability dimension and the intro-for the labile group.…”