DISCUSSION_draft_following R's edits

DISCUSSION_draft_following R's edits - Discussion The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Discussion The current study is to date the first to report test-retest reliability of the voluntary emotion regulation paradigm to date (Jackson et al, 2000). Mainly ost importantly , we found that there are differential regulation stabilities depending on which peripheral output system of emotion was measured, namely eyeblink startle magnitude and corrugator EMG. Over the four-week interval startle responses exhibited retest reliabilities that were moderate (in Maintain – Suppression for males) to nil (in – why do you use the word “in”? Enhance – Maintain) statistical significance. Corrugator activity, on the other hand, demonstrated highly significant reliabilities for all regulation instructions conditions over time. Such greater corrugator reliability as compared to startle was also found with the emotion-modulation effects. These differential stability estimates, as we predicted, may partly be due to the reliability of the data from the individual sessions upon which they are based since corrugator EMG is averaged over several seconds whereas the startle measure was based on only a few 50 ms trials per condition of approximately 50 ms in duration . The response system that integrates over time should be inherently more reliable and our data are strongly consistent with this conjecture. In addition, the emotion-modulated startle effect, though it has been robust and replicable, has intrinsically limited stability, moderate at best slightly confusing to o many fragments w/ commas (Larson et al., 2000; 2005, Manber et al., 2000), further questioning the utility of the startle in assessing individual differences in emotional reactivity that are assumed to be relatively stable over time - good . Another possibility of possible reason for lower startle stability of emotion regulation is that the startle responses were more sensitive to arousal. In the first assessment, both startle and corrugator showed the expected linear instruction effects (i.e., enhance > maintain > suppress); however, such a relationship was preserved in the second assessment only with corrugator, though the ordering of the means was in the expected direction for startle. Although there was no assessment effect for startle , and emotion-modulated startle ( W hat was observed and what had no assessment effect ? Startle or emotion-mod. startle or both?) was observed for both assessments prior to the regulation instructions, having performed the regulation task previously (which is more active and in-depth, elaborate processing than passively viewing pictures) might have led to an overall decrease in the level of motivational engagement. In fact, previous reports on the stability of the emotion-modulated startle using both positive and negative pictures found a change from valence-dependent modulation in the first assessment to arousal- modulation in the second assessment (Manber et al., 2000) and that the arousal component of the affective pictures most strongly contributed to the startle stability
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

DISCUSSION_draft_following R's edits - Discussion The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online