Dopamine modulates frontomedial failure processing of agentic introverts versus extraverts in incentive contexts

The agency facet of extraversion (aE) describes individual differences in goal-directed behavior and has been linked to dopamine function in incentive contexts. Because dopamine presumably modulates the processing of negative feedback/failure, aE may relate to failure processing in incentive contexts. To test this hypothesis, N = 86 participants performed a virtual ball-catching task. An incentive context was created by displaying potential rewards and subtle manipulations of task performance, which either was (control group) or was not (incentive context group) made explicit. To probe the involvement of dopamine, participants received either placebo or the selective dopamine D2 receptor antagonist sulpiride (200 mg). Failure processing was assessed through negative-feedback-evoked differences in the frontal midline theta electroencephalogram power (DFMT) and in the feedback-related negativity event-related potential component (FRN). Before incentives were introduced, DFMT (but not the FRN) was related to neuroticism/anxiety. Importantly, once incentives were displayed, aE was associated with DFMT, FRN, task performance, and changes in self-reported positive affect, which further depended on incentive context group and/or substance group: In the incentive context group but not in the control group, agentic extraverts showed relatively blunted DFMT after placebo. Sulpiride significantly enhanced DFMT, whereas it reduced FRN amplitudes and performance in agentic extra- versus introverts. These findings provide strong support for current dopamine models of aE and failure processing, and also highlight the importance of task context. Moreover, the dissociations of FRN and DFMT suggest the existence of two nonredundant electrophysiological indices of feedback processing, both relating to dopamine and aE.     

Assessments in Psychotherapy with Suicidal Patients: The Precedence of Alliance Work

Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy - In this article the aim was to explore how therapists handle suicide risk assessment in connection with patient’s experience of alliance in...     

Patient Perspectives on Co-Therapists’ Behaviors in Group CBT

Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy - Therapist behaviour influences group cohesion and the outcome of group psychotherapy. The group members make first hand observations of the therapists in...     

Applying a logic of appropriateness to understand behavioral differences between common resource dilemmas and public good dilemmas

Common resource dilemmas (CRDs) and public good dilemmas (PGDs) are distinct types of social dilemmas, yet they model the same underlying conflict between the collective interest and one's self-interest. Here, we study and interpret behavioral differences between these two main types of social dilemmas by applying a logic of appropriateness. In two experiments, we argue and demonstrate that CRDs, relative to PGDs, evoke higher levels of cooperation, because taking from collective property (in CRDs) is generally considered less appropriate than not giving from personal property (in PGDs). Importantly, these differential considerations of appropriateness are reflected not only in the willingness to cooperate but also in the willingness to punish and reward others' (non)cooperative behavior. Taken together, the findings reveal that CRDs and PGDs elicit different norms of appropriateness.     

Relapse/Recurrence Prevention in Major Depressive Disorder: 26-Month Follow-Up of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Versus an Active Control

We conducted a 26-month follow-up of a previously reported 12-month study that compared mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) to a rigorous active control condition (ACC) for depressive relapse/recurrence prevention and improvements in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. Participants in remission from major depression were randomized to an 8-week MBCT group (n = 46) or the ACC (n = 46). Outcomes were assessed at baseline; postintervention; and 6, 12, and 26 months. Intention-to-treat analyses indicated no differences between groups for any outcome over the 26-month follow-up. Time to relapse results (MBCT vs. ACC) indicated a hazard ratio = .82, 95% CI [.34, 1.99]. Relapse rates were 47.8% for MBCT and 50.0% for ACC. Piecewise analyses indicated that steeper declines in depressive symptoms in the MBCT vs. the ACC group from postintervention to 12 months were not maintained after 12 months. Both groups experienced a marginally significant rebound of depressive symptoms after 12 months but were still improved at 26 months compared to baseline (b = –4.12, p <= .008). Results for life satisfaction were similar. In sum, over a 26-month follow-up, MBCT was no more effective for preventing depression relapse/recurrence, reducing depressive symptoms, or improving life satisfaction than a rigorous ACC. Based on epidemiological data and evidence from prior depression prevention trials, we discuss the possibility that both MBCT and ACC confer equal therapeutic benefit. Future studies that include treatment as usual (TAU) control conditions are needed to confirm this possibility and to rule out the potential role of time-related effects. Overall findings underscore the importance of comparing MBCT to TAU as well as to ACCs.     

Reach out to one and you reach out to many: Social touch affects third‐party observers

Casual social touch influences emotional perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours of interaction partners. We asked whether these influences extend to third‐party observers. To this end, we developed the Social Touch Picture Set comprising line drawings of dyadic interactions, half of which entailed publicly acceptable casual touch and half of which served as no‐touch controls. In Experiment 1, participants provided basic image norms by rating how frequently they observed a displayed touch gesture in everyday life and how comfortable they were observing it. Results implied that some touch gestures were observed more frequently and with greater comfort than others (e.g., handshake vs. hug). All gestures, however, obtained rating scores suitable for inclusion in Experiments 2 and 3. In Experiment 2, participants rated perceived valence, arousal, and likeability of randomly presented touch and no‐touch images without being explicitly informed about touch. Image characters seemed more positive, aroused, and likeable when they touched as compared to when they did not touch. Image characters seemed more negative and aroused, but were equally likeable, when they received touch as compared to when there was no physical contact. In Experiment 3, participants passively viewed touch and no‐touch images while their eye movements were recorded. Differential gazing at touch as compared to no‐touch images emerged within the first 500 ms following image exposure and was largely restricted to the characters' upper body. Gazing at the touching body parts (e.g., hands) was minimal and largely unaffected by touch, suggesting that touch processing occurred outside the focus of visual attention. Together, these findings establish touch as an important visual cue and provide novel insights into how this cue modulates socio‐emotional processing in third‐party observers.