THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO INFORMATION PROCESSING
Thus far the emphasis was on social information-processing models. The focus of this chapter is the identification and testing of biological systems on which social information processing is based. As Zuckerman (1993) argued, most previous attempts to identify biological structures underlying personality have been of the top-down type. In a topdown approach research starts with some personality trait. Subsequent research is aimed at the identification of neurological, biochemical and physiological processes underlying them. Finally, behaviour genetic studies are used to identify the contribution of genetics to the trait. Our approach has been different using a bottom-up rather than a top-down strategy. First, on theoretical grounds we identified biological systems presumably underlying social information processing. Subsequently, we addressed the behaviour genetics of information processing using the MZ-DZ design to test the genetical basis of the physiological systems involved. Finally, we studied the connections between the biological systems and some major elements derived from the social cognitive tradition of information processing.
Models Choosen
Several biological models of information processing have been proposed. Those models have a common focus emphasizing formal aspects rather than cognitive contents of information processing. A major class of formal models are energetic models. Those models are based on the idea that the processing of information requires energetic resources, mental or attentional capacity. Most current energetic models are multiple resource models according to which the human processing system is composed of several relatively independent resources. Relatively early in the study of information-processing energetics the attention was confined to the output regulating activation system (Duffy, 1957). Later on, research of the orienting reflex emphasized the input regulating arousal system (Sokolow, 1960). Finally, studies of the coordination between input and output drew the attention to a third system: effort (Kahneman, 1973). Accordingly, in several current models three kinds of processing systems are proposed. Examples are Pribramand cGuinness (1975, 1992), Wickens (1984) and Gray (1991). The model used in this study is based on one of them: the Pribram and McGuinness (1975, 1992) model of attentional control. In this model one control system is connected with arousal regulating input processes. The arousal system is particularly sensitive to novelty. With increasing novelty arousal tends to become more controlled, with increasing familiarity arousal becomes more automatic. A second system regulates the preparation of actions through activation. Controlled activation underlies tonic readiness, i.e. maintaining a set to continue ongoing behaviour. A third system co-ordinates the arousal and activation systems through effort. A major activity of the effort system is to uncouple output processes from input processes. The arousal, activation and effort systems are independent processing systems. They may act serially or in parallel and there is no fixed order in their functioning. Each system may be represented as a bipolar dimension ranging from controlled processing to automatic processing (Hettema et al., 2000). The dimensions should not be taken to represent merely affectively neutral processing systems underlying intellectual task performance. Instead, intimate connections are assumed of the processing systems with emotion, motivation and volition (McGuinness and Pribram, 1980; Hettema, 1991). Recent developments in the study of emotions and volition suggest that the distinction between automatic and controlled processing may be connected (Kuhl, 1994; Ledoux, 1996). Summarizing then, the Pribram-McGuinness model proposes different processing
systems for input, output and input-output co-ordination. Each system has the capacity to
process information in a more automatic or more controlled way, suggesting that emotional and volitional processing may be involved in each.
Thus far the emphasis was on social information-processing models. The focus of this chapter is the identification and testing of biological systems on which social information processing is based. As Zuckerman (1993) argued, most previous attempts to identify biological structures underlying personality have been of the top-down type. In a topdown approach research starts with some personality trait. Subsequent research is aimed at the identification of neurological, biochemical and physiological processes underlying them. Finally, behaviour genetic studies are used to identify the contribution of genetics to the trait. Our approach has been different using a bottom-up rather than a top-down strategy. First, on theoretical grounds we identified biological systems presumably underlying social information processing. Subsequently, we addressed the behaviour genetics of information processing using the MZ-DZ design to test the genetical basis of the physiological systems involved. Finally, we studied the connections between the biological systems and some major elements derived from the social cognitive tradition of information processing.
Models Choosen
Several biological models of information processing have been proposed. Those models have a common focus emphasizing formal aspects rather than cognitive contents of information processing. A major class of formal models are energetic models. Those models are based on the idea that the processing of information requires energetic resources, mental or attentional capacity. Most current energetic models are multiple resource models according to which the human processing system is composed of several relatively independent resources. Relatively early in the study of information-processing energetics the attention was confined to the output regulating activation system (Duffy, 1957). Later on, research of the orienting reflex emphasized the input regulating arousal system (Sokolow, 1960). Finally, studies of the coordination between input and output drew the attention to a third system: effort (Kahneman, 1973). Accordingly, in several current models three kinds of processing systems are proposed. Examples are Pribramand cGuinness (1975, 1992), Wickens (1984) and Gray (1991). The model used in this study is based on one of them: the Pribram and McGuinness (1975, 1992) model of attentional control. In this model one control system is connected with arousal regulating input processes. The arousal system is particularly sensitive to novelty. With increasing novelty arousal tends to become more controlled, with increasing familiarity arousal becomes more automatic. A second system regulates the preparation of actions through activation. Controlled activation underlies tonic readiness, i.e. maintaining a set to continue ongoing behaviour. A third system co-ordinates the arousal and activation systems through effort. A major activity of the effort system is to uncouple output processes from input processes. The arousal, activation and effort systems are independent processing systems. They may act serially or in parallel and there is no fixed order in their functioning. Each system may be represented as a bipolar dimension ranging from controlled processing to automatic processing (Hettema et al., 2000). The dimensions should not be taken to represent merely affectively neutral processing systems underlying intellectual task performance. Instead, intimate connections are assumed of the processing systems with emotion, motivation and volition (McGuinness and Pribram, 1980; Hettema, 1991). Recent developments in the study of emotions and volition suggest that the distinction between automatic and controlled processing may be connected (Kuhl, 1994; Ledoux, 1996). Summarizing then, the Pribram-McGuinness model proposes different processing
systems for input, output and input-output co-ordination. Each system has the capacity to
process information in a more automatic or more controlled way, suggesting that emotional and volitional processing may be involved in each.
No comments:
Post a Comment