Jan De Houwer Ghent University, Belgium


=> Strong supportive evidence: Depends on person (e.g., need for cognition, working memory capacity) and situation (e.g., time pressure)



Download 14,01 Kb.
Page9/9
Date02.10.2019
Size14,01 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

=> Strong supportive evidence: Depends on person (e.g., need for cognition, working memory capacity) and situation (e.g., time pressure)

ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

4. Implicit measures in psychopathology

4. Implicit measures in psychopathology

Ideal testing ground for implicit measures

=> pathological behavior and thinking is often automatic (e.g., unintentional, uncontrollable, …)

=> implicit measures can capture automatic behavior & thinking

Review papers:

- Roefs et al. (2011, Psychological Bulletin)

- Teachman et al. (2012, Clinical Psychology Review)


ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

Main lines of research:

Main lines of research:

  • Known group differences (e.g., spider vs. snake phobics)
  • Prediction of clinically relevant behavior (e.g., BAT, drinking, relapse)
  • Experimental manipulations
  • - mood inductions

    - THERAPY: FEW STUDIES (e.g., Clerkin et al., 2014, BRaT)

    - changing automatic processes (e.g., Eberl et al., 2013, DCN)

    Main results: MIXED

  • In line with theoretical expectations: specific phobia, pedophilia, anorexia
  • => e.g., Spruyt et al. (in press): 72% 6 month relapse prediction (90%)

  • Contrary to theoretical expectations: depression, social phobia, BDD
  • But generally: Much more research is needed

Implicit measures will not go away:

Implicit measures will not go away:

Unique way to capture automatic aspects of cognition and behavior!

=> because automatic can diverge from non-automatic, always necessary to assess also the automatic level

(e.g., anti-smoking adds might increase automatic liking of smoking in smokers; Smith & De Houwer, submitted)

But what about the brain?

=> implicit measures can involve brain responses as outcomes (De Houwer & Moors, 2010)

=> but they also require validation (Measure? Implicit?)

=> behavioral implicit measures are easy to administer also over the internet (see research on lie detection; Verschuere & De Houwer, 2010)

ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

Future

=> More emphasis on behavior (Hughes et al., 2012, JCBS)

=> More sophisticated psychometrics (Maarten De Schryver)

=> More emphasis on automatic beliefs (and identifying the relevant beliefs; e.g. “I SHOULD BE good”)


ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

Automatic spreading of activation via associations (e.g., Fazio)


Future: Measuring propositions / beliefs

Automatic spreading of activation via associations (e.g., Fazio)

* automatic effect as the result of a known mechanism

* no impact of type of relation


PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012

beer


good

ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015


Automatic construction or activation of propositions (DH, 2014, SPPC)

Automatic construction or activation of propositions (DH, 2014, SPPC)

TYPE OF RELATION MATTERS:

e.g.,: “I” and “BEER” can be related in different ways

“I LIKE BEER”

“I WANT TO DISLIKE BEER”

“I SHOULD DISLIKE BEER”


PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012

“beer is good”

ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

III. TAKE HOME MESSAGES

  • Implicit measures can be used to assess (changes in) automatic cognition and behavior
  • Implicit = automatic (not necessarily unconscious)
  • Because (pathological) behavior is often automatic, implicit measures are here to stay

Berlin - 3 July 2013

THE END


ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9


The database is protected by copyright ©psysite.info 2019
send message

    Main page