538097 research-article2014
APAXXX10.1177/0003065114538097Poster SummariesPoster Summaries
ja Pa
Poster Summaries
62/3
P r i m a r y / S e c o n d a r y P r o c e ss C o g n i t i o n a n d E m b o d i e d S pa c e
Mike Finn, Morgun Custer, Gyrid Lyon, and Michael R. Nash (Group for the Empirical Study of Psychodynamic Processes and Psychotherapy, University of Tennessee) DOI: 10.1177/0003065114538097
Neuropsychoanalytic theoretical and clinical work (Bazan 2013) gestures at the differences between how primary and secondary process thinkers experience their bodies in space. Not much is known about this, however, though it seems that primary process thinkers may have more fluid body schemas than secondary process thinkers. That is, they may be more prone to subjective distortions of space. We first present a detailed analysis that demonstrates the individual differences between primary and secondary processing as measured by the GeoCat (Vanheule et al. 2011) on a novel task of implicit embodied distancing of self-to-objects (Embodied Distancing Task; Finn et al. 2013). These findings were examined from two perspectives: psychoanalytic theory on psychopathology and embodiment (Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton 1964; Muller and Tillman 2007) and existential-phenomenological perspectives on the self (Heidegger 1927; Merleau-Ponty 1945). We sought to explore the notion that predominantly primary process thinkers experience their bodies, and thus the space around them, differently from how predominantly secondary process thinkers do. We examined the responses of participants on the Embodied Distance Task, a novel task of experiential distance distortions in peripersonal space. Method
The 81 participants were 65.4% female, with an average age of 19.41 (SD = 4.57). Each participant was seated in front of a touchscreen monitor. The seat was adjusted in such a way that when relaxed in a seated NP6
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
Poster Summaries
posture, participants could touch the far edge of the screen without changing the position of their torso. This precluded the need for participants to move anything other than their dominant arm when responding to the task. Stimuli were of three categories: simple geometric shapes, beverages, and household objects. The geometric shapes were designed in Adobe Photoshop CS5. The images of beverages and similarly sized household objects were found in various public domain image archives. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions: they were asked to either (1) eat a 1.48 oz. bag of pretzels, (2) drink a 10 fl. oz. bottle of water, or (3) do neither (the “null” condition). As they ate or drank (or did neither), they completed a primary process measure that asked them to determine which of two arrangements of geometric shapes they thought better matched a target figure (GeoCat; Vanheule et al. 2011). After completing the measure (and finishing their food or drink), participants encountered a block of beverage stimuli or household object stimuli, the order of which was counterbalanced between participants. As part of the experiment, all participants were then given a bottle of water and informed they could satiate themselves by drinking “as much as you want” while filling out a second version of the distractor task and a short laptop questionnaire. Finally, participants completed another two blocks of beverage stimuli and household object stimuli, and then completed a final questionnaire that asked demographic questions and included a debriefing interview. For each block, 12 stimuli were presented for 3 seconds each. In a departure from our previous two studies, we presented 5 test stimuli in a central location, while the remaining 7 decoy stimuli were placed in front of and behind the test stimuli. Accordingly, the following analyses are limited to the five centrally located test stimuli. Results and Conclusion
We performed a linear mixed-effects model predicting placement of stimuli with condition (3 levels), block (4 levels), and a natural log transformation of GeoCat scores (continuous) as fixed effects. Participants were entered as a random effect in the model (81 participants). This served to explore the effect of primary/secondary process mentation on embodied distancing. We found that GeoCat impacted distancing in the model across the blocks, F(1, 1434) = 4.16, p = .042, while block and condition were not significant in the model, p > .25. Further exploration
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
NP7
Poster Summaries
of the effects indicated that the effect of GeoCat was much stronger in the later 2 blocks, such that participants distorted objects in these blocks (regardless of stimulus category) closer to their bodies. These findings bear on psychoanalytic and existential-phenomenological perspectives on the self—particularly on the role of the body and situation in experience. That is, those exhibiting predominantly primary process cognition may be more prone to altering surrounding space. Using this framework, we have determined that the level of symbolic cognition is likely associated with the structure of bodily schema. Further research will explore the nature of bodily expression of the self in psychotherapy and psychopathology across individuals of different levels of personality organization, References
Bazan, A. (2013). Repression as the condition for consciousness. Neuropsychoanalysis 15:20–24. Finn, M., Wong, A.J., Goldman, J., & Nash, M.R. (2013). Embodied Distance Task: Measurement of spatial displacement of objects from the self. Unpublished. Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time, transl. J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Horowitz, M.J., Duff, D.F., & Stratton, L.O. (1964). Body-buffer zone: Exploration of personal space. Archives of General Psychiatry 15:651–656. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958. Muller, J.P., & Tillman, J.G., eds. (2007). The Embodied Subject: Minding the Body in Psychoanalysis. Lanham, MD: Aronson. Vanheule, S., Roelstraete, B., Geerardyn, F., Murphy, C., Bazan, A., & Brakel, L.A.W. (2011). Construct validation and internal consistency of the Geometric Categorization task (GeoCat) for measuring primary and secondary process. Psychoanalytic Psychology 28:209–228. Mike Finn 311 Austin Peay Building University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 E-mail: [email protected]
NP8
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
APAXXX10.1177/0003065114538097Poster SummariesPoster Summaries
ja Pa
Poster Summaries
62/3
P r i m a r y / S e c o n d a r y P r o c e ss C o g n i t i o n a n d E m b o d i e d S pa c e
Mike Finn, Morgun Custer, Gyrid Lyon, and Michael R. Nash (Group for the Empirical Study of Psychodynamic Processes and Psychotherapy, University of Tennessee) DOI: 10.1177/0003065114538097
Neuropsychoanalytic theoretical and clinical work (Bazan 2013) gestures at the differences between how primary and secondary process thinkers experience their bodies in space. Not much is known about this, however, though it seems that primary process thinkers may have more fluid body schemas than secondary process thinkers. That is, they may be more prone to subjective distortions of space. We first present a detailed analysis that demonstrates the individual differences between primary and secondary processing as measured by the GeoCat (Vanheule et al. 2011) on a novel task of implicit embodied distancing of self-to-objects (Embodied Distancing Task; Finn et al. 2013). These findings were examined from two perspectives: psychoanalytic theory on psychopathology and embodiment (Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton 1964; Muller and Tillman 2007) and existential-phenomenological perspectives on the self (Heidegger 1927; Merleau-Ponty 1945). We sought to explore the notion that predominantly primary process thinkers experience their bodies, and thus the space around them, differently from how predominantly secondary process thinkers do. We examined the responses of participants on the Embodied Distance Task, a novel task of experiential distance distortions in peripersonal space. Method
The 81 participants were 65.4% female, with an average age of 19.41 (SD = 4.57). Each participant was seated in front of a touchscreen monitor. The seat was adjusted in such a way that when relaxed in a seated NP6
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
Poster Summaries
posture, participants could touch the far edge of the screen without changing the position of their torso. This precluded the need for participants to move anything other than their dominant arm when responding to the task. Stimuli were of three categories: simple geometric shapes, beverages, and household objects. The geometric shapes were designed in Adobe Photoshop CS5. The images of beverages and similarly sized household objects were found in various public domain image archives. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions: they were asked to either (1) eat a 1.48 oz. bag of pretzels, (2) drink a 10 fl. oz. bottle of water, or (3) do neither (the “null” condition). As they ate or drank (or did neither), they completed a primary process measure that asked them to determine which of two arrangements of geometric shapes they thought better matched a target figure (GeoCat; Vanheule et al. 2011). After completing the measure (and finishing their food or drink), participants encountered a block of beverage stimuli or household object stimuli, the order of which was counterbalanced between participants. As part of the experiment, all participants were then given a bottle of water and informed they could satiate themselves by drinking “as much as you want” while filling out a second version of the distractor task and a short laptop questionnaire. Finally, participants completed another two blocks of beverage stimuli and household object stimuli, and then completed a final questionnaire that asked demographic questions and included a debriefing interview. For each block, 12 stimuli were presented for 3 seconds each. In a departure from our previous two studies, we presented 5 test stimuli in a central location, while the remaining 7 decoy stimuli were placed in front of and behind the test stimuli. Accordingly, the following analyses are limited to the five centrally located test stimuli. Results and Conclusion
We performed a linear mixed-effects model predicting placement of stimuli with condition (3 levels), block (4 levels), and a natural log transformation of GeoCat scores (continuous) as fixed effects. Participants were entered as a random effect in the model (81 participants). This served to explore the effect of primary/secondary process mentation on embodied distancing. We found that GeoCat impacted distancing in the model across the blocks, F(1, 1434) = 4.16, p = .042, while block and condition were not significant in the model, p > .25. Further exploration
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
NP7
Poster Summaries
of the effects indicated that the effect of GeoCat was much stronger in the later 2 blocks, such that participants distorted objects in these blocks (regardless of stimulus category) closer to their bodies. These findings bear on psychoanalytic and existential-phenomenological perspectives on the self—particularly on the role of the body and situation in experience. That is, those exhibiting predominantly primary process cognition may be more prone to altering surrounding space. Using this framework, we have determined that the level of symbolic cognition is likely associated with the structure of bodily schema. Further research will explore the nature of bodily expression of the self in psychotherapy and psychopathology across individuals of different levels of personality organization, References
Bazan, A. (2013). Repression as the condition for consciousness. Neuropsychoanalysis 15:20–24. Finn, M., Wong, A.J., Goldman, J., & Nash, M.R. (2013). Embodied Distance Task: Measurement of spatial displacement of objects from the self. Unpublished. Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time, transl. J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Horowitz, M.J., Duff, D.F., & Stratton, L.O. (1964). Body-buffer zone: Exploration of personal space. Archives of General Psychiatry 15:651–656. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958. Muller, J.P., & Tillman, J.G., eds. (2007). The Embodied Subject: Minding the Body in Psychoanalysis. Lanham, MD: Aronson. Vanheule, S., Roelstraete, B., Geerardyn, F., Murphy, C., Bazan, A., & Brakel, L.A.W. (2011). Construct validation and internal consistency of the Geometric Categorization task (GeoCat) for measuring primary and secondary process. Psychoanalytic Psychology 28:209–228. Mike Finn 311 Austin Peay Building University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 E-mail: [email protected]
NP8
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on April 13, 2015
