Patients suffering from nonspecific work-related upper extremity disorders exhibit insufficient movement strategies

The purpose of this research was to investigate whether patients experiencing nonspecific complaints of the forearm caused by sustained use of the personal computer exhibit deviant movement strategies as compared to healthy participants. Patients (N=10) and controls (N=24) performed a graphical aiming task combined with an auditory memory task. Force production (pen pressure), kinematic- and performance variables were recorded. During a trial, the control group gradually increased pen pressure from the stationary phases to the dynamic phase. The patients increased their pen pressure much more abruptly and to such a degree that the final pressure during real-time movement far exceeded that of the controls. Memory load led to a greater increase of pen pressure from the stationary phase to the dynamic phase in the patient group. Patients further displayed longer reaction times. The results are discussed within the framework of our recent theory on the role of neuromotor noise in the regulation of task performance under conditions of stress.     

Evaluating Eve: visceral states influence the evaluation of impulsive behavior

Impulsive behavior is a common source of stigma. The authors argue that people often stigmatize impulsive behavior because they fail to appreciate the influence visceral impulses have on behavior. Because people tend to underestimate the motivational force of cravings for sex, drugs, food, and so forth, they are prone to stigmatize those who act on these impulses. In line with this reasoning, in 4 studies, the authors found that participants who were in a cold state (e.g., not hungry) made less favorable evaluations of a related impulsive behavior (impulsive eating) than did participants who were in a hot state (e.g., hungry). This empathy gap effect was tested with 3 different visceral states--fatigue, hunger, and sexual arousal--and was found both when participants evaluated others' impulsive behavior (Studies 1 & 2) and when participants evaluated their own impulsive behavior (Study 3). Study 3 also demonstrated that the empathy gap effect is due to different perceptions of the strength of the visceral state itself. Finally, Study 4 revealed that this effect is state specific: Hungry people, for example, evaluated only hunger-driven impulses, and not other forms of impulse, more favorably.     

The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation

We examined the effects of unobtrusive affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. To induce focus, participants worked on a word-search puzzle consisting of either affective (e.g., emotion) or cognitive (e.g., reasoning) words. They then read positive and negative affective and cognitive information about a new attitude object. In the affective focus condition, evaluations were more congruent with the valence of the affective information than they were in the cognitive focus condition, where evaluations were more congruent with the valence of the cognitive information than they were in the affective focus condition. Affective focus also resulted in enhanced recall of affective information. The effects on evaluations remained stable over time, whereas effects on memory disappeared. Finally, affective focus was associated with faster response times, suggesting enhanced accessibility of affect-based attitudes. The present research shows that an affective or cognitive focus leads to the formation of different attitudes.     

Visceral drives in retrospect: explanations about the inaccessible past

The present research demonstrates that the extent to which people appreciate the influence past visceral states have had on behavior (e.g., the influence hunger has had on food choice) depends largely on their current visceral state. Specifically, we found that when people were in a hot state (e.g., fatigued), they attributed behavior primarily to visceral influences, whereas when people were in a cold state (e.g., nonfatigued), they underestimated the influence of visceral drives and instead attributed behavior primarily to other, nonvisceral factors. This hot-cold empathy gap was observed when people made attributions about the past behavior of another person or themselves, and proved difficult to overcome, as participants could not correct for the biasing influence of their current visceral state when instructed to do so. These different attribution patterns also had consequences for people's satisfaction with their performance. Those who attributed their poor performance to visceral factors were more satisfied than those who made dispositional attributions.