Cardiovascular reactivity and resistance to opposing viewpoints during intragroup conflict

Abstract

This study examined how the outcomes of joint decision making relate to cardiovascular reactions when group members disagree about the decision to be taken. A conflict was experimentally induced during a joint decision-making task, while cardiovascular markers of challenge/threat motivational states were assessed following the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPSM; J. Blascovich, 2008). Results show that individuals were less likely to adjust their initially preferred decision alternative the more they exhibited a cardiovascular pattern indicative of threat (i.e., relatively high total peripheral resistance and low cardiac output) compared to challenge. This finding extends the BPSM by showing a link between threat and rigidity, and emphasizes the importance of psychophysiological processes for studying intragroup conflict and decision making.

Suspicion of motives predicts minorities' responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions

“…Following well-established protocol (e.g., Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge, Norris, & Weisbuch, 2004; Cihangir, Scheepers, Barreto & Ellemers, 2013; de Wit, Scheepers & Jehn, 2012; Lupien, Seery & Almonte, 2012; Moore, Vine, Wilson & Freeman, 2012; Scheepers, de Wit, Ellemers & Sassenberg, 2012; Seery, Leo, Lupien, Konrack & Almonte, 2013), we computed a single Threat-Challenge Reactivity Index (TCRI) for ease of analysis and discussion. We calculated the TCRI by converting each participant’s TPR and CO reactivity values during the memory task into z-scores and summing them.…”

Physiological threat responses predict number processing

“…In contrast, high TPR and low (increases in) CO reflect threat -that is, a less efficient cardiovascular response to a task. Taken together, challenge is indicated by relatively higher CO and lower TPR than threat (e.g., Seery et al, 2010), which predicts subsequent task performance (e.g., Blascovich et al, 2004;De Wit et al, 2012;Seery et al, 2010). The present research aimed at extending this to the domain of numerical performance.…”

“…Notably, this notion closely relates to a more specific case of negative affective responses, namely threat and challenge responses. More specifically, physiological threat responses to a task similarly predict performance in different domains of (cognitive) performance (e.g., Blascovich et al, 2004;De Wit et al, 2012;Moore et al, 2012;Seery et al, 2010). However, these threat and challenge indicators have not yet been applied to the domain of numerical performance.…”

“…Although PEP and HR reactivity do not distinguish between challenge and threat, a shorter PEP and increased HR is indicative of task engagement, a core aspect of motivated PHYSIOLOGICAL THREAT AND NUMBER PROCESSING 9 performance. Therefore, in research applying the biopsychosocial model, reactivity in PEP and HR is reported as a check on whether task engagement is present (i.e., whether PEP and HR change from the actual task compared to the baseline; Blascovich et al, 2004;De Wit et al, 2012;Seery et al, 2010 Procedure. Participants, up to two at a time, were invited to take part in a study involving a number bisection task.…”

“…The present research investigated this idea by means of well-established physiological measures that have repeatedly been linked to performance in other domains (e.g., sports, decision making, etc. ; Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge, Norris, & Weisbuch, 2004;De Wit, Scheepers, & Jehn, 2012;Seery, Weisbuch, Hetenyi, & Blascovich, 2010).…”