BSSR Lecture Series: Positive and Negative Reinforcement Underlying Adolescent Risk-Taking Behavior


Uploaded by NIHOD on 07.06.2012

Transcript:
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE
SPRING SERIES OF OBSSR'S LECTURE
SERIES.
MY NAME IS MIKE SPITTEL, I WORK
IN THE OFFICE.
IT IS REALLY MY PLEASURE TO
BRING TO YOU TODAY DR. CARL
LEJUEZ.
DR. CARL LEJUEZ IS PROFESSOR IN
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND WHERE
HE'S FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR ADDICTIONS
PERSONALITY AND EMOTION RESEARCH
OR CAPR.
HIS RESEARCH IS TRANSLATIONAL IN
NATURE, APPLYING BASIC
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY FINDINGS FROM
LABORATORY SETTINGS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL ASSESSMENT
AND TREATMENT STRATEGIES IN
CLINICAL SETTINGS.
HIS RESEARCH SPANS THE CLINICAL
DOMAINS OF ADDICTIONS,
PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY AND MOOD
DISORDERS AN MOST INTERESTED IN
THE COMMON PROCESSES ACROSS
THESE CONDITIONS.
HIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN FUNDED
CONTINUOUSLY BY NIH SINCE 2003
PRIMARILY BY THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE.
IN ANY EVENT WITH THAT AS
INTRODUCTION IT IS MY PLEASURE
TO INTRODUE YOU TO DR. CARL
LEJUEZ.
[APPLAUSE]
>> WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING ME HERE AND I'M
ESPECIALLY APPRECIATIVE BECAUSE
JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE'RE ABLE
TO DO IN OUR LAB IS FUNDED BY
NIDA AND NIAAA.
AND SO IT'S, IN ADDITION TO
BEING AN HONOR TO BE HERE I
APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE
OPPORTUNITY THAT NIH HAS GIVEN
US.
SO WHAT I'LL PRESENT TODAY IS A
LOT OF THE PRODUCT OF THAT.
I WILL SAY UP-FRONT, WE'LL BE
TALKING ABOUT ADOLESCENT RISK
TAKING BUT I THINK THIS
PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE AS
MUCH ABOUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
WHAT WE WANT THINGS TO BE AND
MAYBE WHAT THINGS ARE IN
SCIENCE.
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
SOME OF THE INITIAL IDEAS THAT
WE HAD IN OUR LAB AND SOME OF
THE OPTIMISM WE HAD AND WAYS IN
WHICH THAT HASN'T NECESSARILY
WORKED OUT EXACTLY LIKE WE
THOUGHT IT WOULD AND WHAT THAT
STRUGGLE IS OF REALIZING WHAT
MAYBE YOU THOUGHT WAS THE CASE,
MAY NOT BE, BUT THEN SEEING WHAT
THE RIGHT OR OTHER DIRECTIONS
ARE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW?
GOOD.
I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY NOT BEEN
HEARD BEFORE SO THIS IS A NICE
CHANGE.
OKAY.
SO THAT WILL BE KIND OF THE
BACKDROP OF WHAT I'LL BE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY.
IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT RISK
TAKING BEHAVIOR, SPECIFICALLY
ADOLESCENT RISK TAKING BEHAVIOR,
NOTHING I'M GOING TO SAY HERE
THAT ISN'T FAMILIAR TO EVERYONE
IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING THIS AS
A CLINICALLY RELEVANT PROBLEM.
IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT HOW
DO WE ULTIMATELY INTERVENE WITH
ADOLESCENCE AND TO EITHER
PREVENT OR SLOW DOWN RISK TAKING
BEHAVIOR, ONE -- FEEL LIKE I'M
BEING INTERROGATED.
IT WASN'T ME, I SWEAR.
I'LL JUST KEEP GOING IN THE
MEANTIME.
SO IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT( MOST REASONABLE
WAYS TO PREDICT OR REALLY GIVE
US A SENSE OF WHAT -- WHERE DO
WE WANT TO BE INTERVENING, ONE
POTENTIAL AREA IS IN
PERSONALITY.
AND THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF
WAYS THAT WE HAVE STUDIED
PERSONALITY, LET'S SAY
CO-VARIANTS OF RISK TAKING
BEHAVIOR.
TWO OF THE MOST COMMON IS
SENSATION SEEKING AND
IMPULSIVITY.
SENSATION SEEKING CERTAINLY IS
AN INCREDIBLY WELL-STUDIED AND
STRONG PREDICTOR OF RISK-TAKING
BEHAVIOR, IMPULSIVITY ALSO, A
LITTLE COMPLY CAITD BY --
COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THERE'S
DIMENSIONS AN WAYS PEOPLE STUDY
IT BUT LARGELYTHERE'S
REASONABLE AGREEMENT THAT THESE
ARE IMPORTANT PERSONALITY
FACTORS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE
ARE INTERESTED IN IS MOVING
BEYOND LARGELY SELF- REPORT
MEASURES.
ONE POSSIBILITY WE STARTED WITH
THINKING HOW DO WE TAKE THESE
CONSTRUCTS AT LEAST SAY OF
SENSATION SEEKING AND MAKE IT
INTO A BEHAVIORAL MEASURE, IT'S
REALLY QUITE HARD.
IF YOU LOOK IN THE LITERATURE,
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE A VARIABLE
THAT'S SO POWERFUL THAT THERE
HASN'T BEEN REALLY ANY KIND OF
BEHAVIORAL MEASURE OF IT AND WE
HAVE A FEW FAILED GRANT
APPLICATIONS AND FAILED IDEAS
HOW TO TRY TO DO THAT.
I THINK IN THINKING ABOUT OTHER
DIRECTIONS, WE BECAME REALLY
INTERESTED IN THE IDEA OF RISK
TAKING MORE GLOBALLY, AND A
PROPENSITY TO TAKE RISK.
THIS IS ACTUALLY AN INCREDIBLY
HARD VARIABLE TO STUDY WITH
SELF-REPORT BECAUSE YOU REALLY
FIND THAT YOU'RE EITHER ASKING
ABOUT IMPULSIVE CHOICE OR ASKING
SENSATION SEEKING OR SIMPLY
ASKING ABOUT BEHAVIOR.
AND IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
PROCESSES UNDERLYING RISK TAKING
YOU DONE WANT TO JUST ASK ABOUT
THE BEHAVIOR ITSELF, THERE'S
CLEARLY LOGICAL ISSUES WITH
THAT.
SO THAT MOVED US TO THE IDEA OF
TRYING TO DEVELOP BEHAVIORAL
TASKS OF A PROPENSITY TO TAKE
RISKS.
THERE ARE MANY VERY GOOD RISK
TAKING MEASURES, THERE'S PEOPLE
IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE VERY
WELL KNOWN AND WELL UTILIZED
BHEAF I DON'T RECALL MEASURES
BUT ONE THAT STANDS OUT AS KIND
OF BEING A GOLD STANDARD IS THE
IOWA GAMBLING TASK.
JUST BASICALLY, PEOPLE ARE
PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH IT BUT
JUST RUN THROUGH AN EXAMPLE.
YOUR SHOWN THAT SET OF CARDS AND
-- FOR THE SAKE OF PRESENTATION,
LET'S SAY THE DECKS ARC AND B
ARE LARGELY THE SAME AND DECK C
AND D ARE LARGELY THE SAME AND
AS YOU PICK THERE'S SOME KIND OF
A CONSEQUENCE THAT HAPPENS SO IN
THIS CASE PICKING DECKS ARC AND
B RESULTED IN A LARGE WIN, IN
THIS CASE $100.
FOR DK C AND D IT WAS A SMALLER
ONE.
NOT SURPRISINGLY MOST CONTINUED
TO GO TO DECKS ARC AND B BECAUSE
YOU EARN MORE MONEY THAN C AND
D.
OVER TIME THERE IS A LOSS
CONTINGENCY ADDED ON TOP SO NOW
MORE TIMES THAN NOT DECK A AND B
IN THE END ARE ACTUALLY LOSING
PROPOSITION.
SO THOUGH YOU'RE GETTING A LARGE
WIN YOU'RE GETTING AN EVEN
LARGER LOSS.
IN CONTRAST THOUGH THEY'RE
BORING, DECK C AND D HAVE A MUCH
SMALLER LOSS.
SO IN THE END YOU HAVE AN
OVERALL GAIN.
WHAT THE TASK DOES IS TREATS
RISK TAKING ESSENTIALLY AS A
DECISION.
IT'S ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IN
THIS CASE WHAT'S CONSIDERED THE
RIGHT
BE THE LESS RISKY ALTERNATIVE.
SO IN THIS CASE DECK C AND D ARE
CONSIDERED THE ADVANTAGEOUS
CHOICE WHERE DECK A AND B RISKY
ONES ARE CONSIDERED THE
DISADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE.
THERE'S A LOT OF LITERATURE
SHOWING THIS TASK IS VERY
RELATED TO A VARIETY OF
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS AND OTHER
RISK TAKING.
BUT IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TRYING TO
MEASURE IN TERMS OF RISK TAKING,
WE BECAME INTERESTED IN AN
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE A
COMPLIMENTARY PERSPECTIVE IS THE
BEST WAY TO SAY IT, THINKING OF
RISK TAKING ON A CONTINUUM.
SO IT'S NOT JUST IDENTIFYING
WHAT THE RISKY OR
DISADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE IS BUT
ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT THAT
KIND OF LINE BETWEEN DO I PUSH
IT A LITTLE MORE, THERE'S
DEFINITELY SOME ADVANTAGES OF
TAKING RISKS THAT AREN'T
NECESSARILY CAPTURED IN TASKS
LIKE THIS.
AND AT SOME POINT EVERYONE HAS
KIND OF A RISK TOLERANCE WHERE
THE BENEFITS OF BEING RISKY
START TO WAYNE AND THE NEGATIVE
START TO TAKE HOLD.
AND WHERE DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAKE
CHOICES IS IN TERMS OF SAYING
THIS IS ENOUGH RISK FOR ME IS
WHERE WE WERE INTERESTED IN.
SO THIS LED TO THE BALLOON
ANALOG RISK TASK JUST TO GIVE
YOU A LITTLE DIAGRAM OF THAT, SO
THE PARTICIPANT HAS SHOWN A
COMPUTER GENERATED BALLOON AND
GIVEN THE OPTION TO PRESS THE
PUMP HERE, EACH TIME THEY DO
THAT THE BALLOON INFLATE AS
LITTLE BIT.
THEY EARN SOME MONEY.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF WHETHER YOU SHOULD
USE REAL REWARDS OR NOT.
PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
DONE ANY PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF
THIS BUT PERSONALLY I THINK
THEORETICALLY IT'S HARD TO FEEL
LIKE YOU'RE STUDYING RISK TAKING
IF YOU'RE JUST DOING IT
HYPOTHETICALLY.
SO WE HAVE ALWAYS USED REAL
REINFORCERS.
IN OUR EARLIEST STUDIES WE USED
REASONABLY HIGH ONES SUCH AS 5
CENTS PER PUMP.
AS THESE ADD UP THERE'S A PRETTY
MEANINGFUL BENEFIT OF BEING
RISKY AND POTENTIAL LOSS OF
THOSE CONSEQUENCES.
SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE IS
THAT YOU PRESS THE PUMP AND IT
GETS LARGER AND LARGER, YOU
START ACCUMULATING MONEY IN THE
TEMPORARY BANK AND AT THAT POINT
THE BALLOON CAN EXPLODE,
HOPEFULLY NOT THAT LOUDLY
BECAUSE THEN WE'RE STUDYING
SOMETHING ELSE.
THE BALLOON POPS HERE AND IN
ANOTHER CASE,
>> I HAVE TO ADMIT'S NOT MUCH
COOLER BUT SLIGHTLY COOLER IN
THE LAB.
I'M A BY SICK PROGRAMMER.
I CAN USUALLY BE OUTPROGRAMMED
BY A 10-YEAR-OLD BUT AT LEAST I
CAN PROGRAM.
IN THIS CASE WE -- YOU PRESS
COLLECT AND YOU EARN THE MONEY
AN DON'T LOSE IT.
SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING, EACH ADDITIONAL PUMP
IN THE BEGINNING IS GIVING YOU
LOTS OF MONEY.
SAY THE 5-CENT EXAMPLE.
BY THE SECOND PUMP YOU'RE
DOUBLING YOUR POTENTIAL GAIN.
IT'S GOING UP 5-CENTS EACH TIME.
AT A CERTAIN POINT SAY AFTER YOU
HAVE MADE 20 PUMPS YOU HAVE A
DOLLAR ON THE LINE.
MAKING ANOTHER PUMP IS ONLY
WORTH 5 CENTS MORE BUT PUTTING
THE DOLLAR ON THE LINE,
DEPENDING WHERE SOMEONE'S RISK
TOLERANCE IS, HYPOTHETICALLY
THAT HAS IMPACT TO WHERE THEY
DECIDE TO STOP.
SO AS I SAID BEFORE, IN THIS
CASE IN THE FIRST STUDY WE USED
ANY CEL BUT WE USED AS LITTLE AS
ONE CENT, AS MUCH AS 25 CENTS.
IN THE VERSION THAT WE USE MOST
FREQUENTLY THE BALLOON RANGES
FROM 1 PUMP TO 128 PUMPS AND THE
AVERAGE BREAK POINT IS USUALLY
AROUND 64.
AND CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT.
MOST PEOPLE ARE RISK AVERSE ON
THE TASK AND YOU DON'T
NECESSARILY SEE A DISTRIBUTION
AROUND 60/40, USUALLY IT'S
AROUND 35 TO 40.
AS MUCH AS WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF TALKING DANGERS OF RISK
TAKING WE KNOW MOST PEOPLE ARE
RISK AVERSE.
SO THIS ISN'T SURPRISING THAT
PEOPLE ARE MODELING THAT ON THE
TEST.
SO THIS IS KIND OF THE IDEA OF
THE DISTRIBUTION.
AS YOU SEE MAKING FEW PUMPS IS
NOT GOING TO EARN YOU MUCH,
MAKING MORE AND MORE IS GIVING
YOU SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
RESPONDINGLY MORE.
THEN AT SOME POINT NOW YOU HAVE
GONE TOO FAR AND NOW NOW
ADDITIONAL PUMPS YOU MAKE MORE
THAN YOU CHECK AND YOU POP MORE
ALSO AND BECAUSE OF THAT YOU
DONE EARN ANYTHING ON THAT.
YOU HAVE THAT DISTRIBUTION.
(OFF MIC)
>> WE HAVE USED ABOUT 30 TRIALS.
WE FIND THAT YOU GET THE BEST
DATA AT AROUND 20.
THAT GIVES PEOPLE ENOUGH OFÑk AN
OPTION.
WE MAKE SURE THE AVERAGE BREAK
POINT IS ALWAYS CONSISTENT WITH
EVERY BLOCK OF TEN TRIALS SO
THERE'S A CHANCE TO LEARN.
I THINK BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND
DOING ANIMAL STUDIES WE GAVE
PEOPLE AS LITTLE INSTRUCTION AS
POSSIBLE.
THERE'S CERTAINLY OTHER
PERSPECTIVES TELLING THEM WHERE
THE BALLOON WOULD HAVE POPPED
THE LAST TIME, OR WHAT THE
STRUCTURE IS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE PARAMETRIC
STUDIES AS I SAID BEFORE ABOUT
THE MONEY ARE IMPORTANT STUDIES
BUT LESS LIKELY TO BE CONDUCTED.
AND I THINK AT THIS POINT IT
PROBABLY WOULD BE USEFUL TO DO A
CLEAR PARAMETRIC STUDY TO
UNDERSTAND HOW TO MOVE RISK
TAKING AROUND WITH INFORMATION
OR WITH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE.
SO AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
THESE ARE FROM OUR EARLIEST
STUDIES.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, 18 TO
25-YEAR-OLDS, THE STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED WHILE I WAS AT BROWN
AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S NO ONE
WEIRDER THAN A BROWN
UNDERGRADUATE SO WE DIDN'T WANT
EVERYONE FROM BROWN SO WE MADE
SURE THAT NO MORE THAN 10% OF
ANY PARTICULAR PARTICIPANT COULD
COME FROM ANY COLLEGE IN THE
AREA AND AT LEAST 20% HAD TO
HAVE NOT GONE TO COLLEGE.
WE HAD A PRETTY BROAD
DISTRIBUTION AND THEY USED
5-CENTS PER PUMP.
THIS ISN'T THE WAY WE -- WE DID
THE ANALYSES CONTINUOUSLY BUT
JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE
VISUALLY HERE.
IF YOU'RE TO LOOK AT NUMBER OF
RISK BEHAVIORS THEY ENGAGED IN
IN THEIR ACTUAL LIFE, THIS IS
ACROSS SUBSTANCE USE,
DELINQUENCY BEHAVIORS, HEALTH
AND SAFETY BEHAVIORS.
AS WE KNOW, THERE'S DEFINITELY
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES ACROSS
RISK BEHAVIORS BUT THERE IS
OFTEN A REASONABLE COHERENCE
WITHIN THEM AS WELL.
SO WHEN ABLE, WE TRY TO THINK
MORE AS -- WE THINK IT LESS AS
ANY PARTICULAR RISK OF BEHAVIOR
AND A GENERAL PROPENSITY TO TAKE
RISKS.
THAT'S WHY WE OFTEN COMBINE
THESE.
SO JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE -- IS
THIS FROM THE '70s?
SO WE HAVE NUMBER OF RISK
BEHAVIOR, 0 TO 1, AND THEN ALL
THE WAY OVER HERE WE HAVE SIX OR
MORE IN THEIR REAL LIFE SO HERE
WE HAVE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPS.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE'S KIND OF A
STEP WISE INCREASE.
WE HAVE MODEST CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN SELF-REPORTED
IMPULSIVITY AND SENSATION
SEEKING.
TO BE HONEST THOSE ARE THE BEST
CORRELATIONS WITH IMPULSIVITY WE
HAVE EVER SEEN.
I THINK THIS RAISES SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THIS THE BEST
TASK OF RISK TAKING, IS THERE A
BETTER ONE THAT GETS AT THIS OR
SOME OTHER THINGS GOING ON OR
MAYBE THESE CONSTRUCTS BY THE
TIME YOU HAVE BEHAVIORAL VERSUS
SELF-REPORT, DIFFERENCES IN THE
CONSTRUCT MAYBE NOT AS RELATED
AS WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK.
I THINK THAT QUESTION IS STILL
UP IN THE AIR.
BUT WHAT THIS DOES RAISE IS THE
IDEA THAT THE BOARD IS NOT
SHARING VARIANTS NECESSARILY
WITH THESE MEASURES SO IT HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO ADD SOMETHING
INCREMENTALLY ABOVE AND BEYOND
THEM AS WE'RE INTERESTED IN
RELATING IT TO THE REAL WORLD
RISK BEHAVIORS.
SO IN THIS CASE WHAT'S
INTERESTING IS THE BART WASN'T
RELATED TO THE REAL WORLD RISK
BEHAVIORS BUT ACTUALLY DID SO IN
AN INCREMENTAL WAY ABOVE AND
BEYOND WHAT YOU GET WITH THE
SELF-REPORT MEASURES.
SO WE HAVE A SIMILAR AFFECT WITH
YOUTH STUDIESCH THIS IS
BASICALLY THE SAME DESIGN, 13 TO
17-YEAR-OLDS, THE TASK IS
LARGELY THE SAME EXCEPT NOW
INSTEAD OF MONEY WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A PRIZE METER WHERE WE HAVE
A ROOM WHERE THE KIDS GO IN AND
WE HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
PRIZES AND WE TAKE THEM OUT AND
BASED ON THE NUMBER OF POINTS
THEY GET, THEY GET TO PICK FROM
THE PRIZE CLOSET.
SO THE SAME BASIC YUD BUT TRIES
NOT TO GET SO CAUGHT UP INTO THE
FINANCIAL PART.
YOU GET THE SAME GENERAL
RELATIONSHIP.
EVERYTHING IS A LITTLE MORE
MODEST.
BUT YOU STILL GET A SIGNIFICANT
INCREMENTAL BUMP ON TOP OF
SENSATION SEEKING AND
IMPULSIVITY AND YOU GET THAT
SAME GENERAL STRUCTURE.
I WILL SAY BY NO MEANS DO ALL
STUDIES THAT HAVE USED THE TASK
FOUND THE SAME CROSS SECTIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS.
GENERALLY WHAT YOU SEE WHEN
LARGER SUMS OF MONEY ARE USED
YOU SEE THE RELATIONSHIPS ARE
STRONGER.
AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT DONE
PARAMETRIC STUDIES SO I DON'T
WANT THE TAKE TOO MUCH
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAYING THAT.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT TYPICALLY MY
SEPS IS FROM THE LITERATURE --
MY SENSE IS STRONGER EFFECTS
WHEN YOU HAVE MORE ON THE LINE.
SO THIS LEADS US TO THE QUESTION
OF CAN WE USE THIS KIND OF A
TASK TO PREDICT PROSPECTIVELY
RISK TAKING BEHAVIOR.
AS I STARTED TO ALLUDE TO IN THE
BEGINNING THIS IDEA THE WAY YOU
WANT THINGS TO BE.
AND I REALLY HAD THIS VISION
THAT WE COULD AT A VERY YOUNG
AGE HAVE KIDS COMPLETE THE BAR
AND WE IDENTIFY WHO WAS RISK
PRONE AND I MEAN, IN MY WORST
MOMENTS I HAD THIS VISION OF
LIKE IN UTERO BART AND WE'D KNOW
RIGHT AWAY WHO WAS RISKY AND AS
SOON AS THEY COME OUT WE'D'D
START PREPPING THEM.
SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S FOOLISH.
AND UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME I THINK
THE DATA HAS FORCED ME TO COME
TO TERMS WITH SOME OF THAT
FOOLISHNESS AND IT'S AN
IMPORTANT LESSON FOR PEOPLE
DOING WORK WITH BEHAVIORAL
TASKS.
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT
IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
WITH THEM AND BE HONEST ABOUT
WHAT THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES
ARE OF THE DATA BECAUSE IN MY
EXPERIENCE WHEAPS IS WE THINK A
TASK IS GOING TO BE GREAT THEN
EVERYONE HATES IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY
THE RIGHT ANSWER.
THE RIGHT ANSWER IS THINKING
WHERE ITS STRENGTHS ARE AND WHAT
IT CAN DO.
I THINK WHEY I'M GOING TO SHOW
YOU NOW IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
THIS IS OUR LONGITUDINAL STUDY,
I'M GOING TO PRESENT DATA FROM
THE FIRST THREE WAVES OF DATA
THROUGH THE FOURTH WAVE, WHICH
IS HAPPENING NOW.
WE HAVE 84% FOLLOW-UP SO
REASONABLE SELECTION OF THE
PARTICIPANTS THAT STARTED THE
STUDY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS ACROSS
THREE WEAS OF DATA.
THESE -- WAVES OF DATA.
BART SCORES AT WAVE 1, WAVE 2
AND WAVE 3.
SO ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE TEN TO
12 HERE, 11 TO 13 HERE AND 12 TO
14 HERE.
WE SEE A PRETTY REASONABLE
YEAR-TO-YEAR CORRELATION.
OF .5 FROM HERE TO HERE AND .67
FROM HERE TO HERE.
IN TERMS OF RELIABLE ON A
BEHAVIORAL TASK THAT'S PRETTY
STRONG.
WE'RE GETTING A REASONABLE SENSE
THAT WE HAVE RELIABILITY IN OUR
MEASUREMENT.
OF COURSE YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE
GONE UP EACH YEAR.
SO BY RELIABILITY I DON'T MEAN
THE SCORE STAYS STABLE BUT IN
TERMS OF THEIR RANK ORD OAR,
THAT STAYS CONSISTENT AS YOU SEE
A GENERAL INCREASE ACROSS
INDIVIDUALS.
NOW, WHEN WE COME NEXT, ONE
QUESTION WE HAVE HERE, IS THIS A
PRACTICE AFFECT?
ARE THEY GETTING MORE RISKY
BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO DO THE
TEST THREE TIMES YOU WOULD
NATURALLY GET IT?
OR IS THERE SOMETHING
DEVELOPMENTALLY AS WE THINK
ABOUT AS YOU GO IN TO MIDDLE
ADOLESCENCE YOU SHOULD BE
GETTING RISKIER?
AT LEAST AT A DEVELOPMENTAL
LEVEL THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD
EXPECT.
IT'S ABOUT A FIVE PUMP INCREASE
EACH YEAR.
ONE OF THE NICE THINGS ABOUT A
BEHAVIORAL TASK YOU DON'T GET
WITH A SELF-REPORT.
I LOVE SELF-REPORT MEASURES,
THEY GET MORE CRITIQUED THAN
THEY SHOULD, SO I DON'T MEAN TO
DISPAIR RAJ THEM BUT THERE'S
DEFINITELY THINGS YOU CAN AND
CAN'T DO WITH SELF-REPORT
MEASURES.
ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF YOU WERE
TO BREAK THE TASK DOWN INTO THE
FIRST TEN BALLOON, SECOND TEN
BALLOONS AND THIRD TEN BALLOONS.
THESE ARE ALL SET UP SO THAT THE
STRUCTURE WHERE THE BREAK POINTS
ARE IN THE FIRST MIDDLE AND END
ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SO
HYPOTHETICALLY YOU SHOULD SEE IF
THERE'S NO EFFECT OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING YOU SHALL SEE A FLAT
LINE.
YOU SEE THIS INTERESTING PATTERN
ALL THROUGH HERE.
THEY START OFF RISKY, THEY COME
DOWN AND THEN LEVEL OFF.
SAME KIND OF THING, ALL THREE
YEARS.
IF THIS WAS TRULY JUST A
PRACTICE EFFECT, FROM
YEAR-TO-YEAR TO YEAR, WE
WOULDN'T SEE THIS DROP HERE.
IF IT WAS PURELY A PRACTICE
EFFECT WE WOULD PROBABLY SEE
SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND LIKE
THIS AND LIKE THAT.
IF WE WERE TO SEE THAT, THEN WE
COULDN'T HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE
THAT THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENTAL
SHIFT AND NOT REPEATED MEASURES
OF TEST.
SO THIS IS A NICE FEATURE OF
USING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
THE NEXT PIECE, HOW DOES IT
RELATE TO A PARTICULAR RISK
BEHAVIOR?
AT THIS AGE FORTUNATELY THEY'RE
NOT ENGAGING IN A LOT :J THE
MORE SERIOUS, WHAT WE'RE
INTERESTED IN THIS STUDY IS HIV
RISK BEHAVIOR.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DATA SO WE
WANTED TO FOCUS ON WHAT WAS THE
THE MOST COMMON RISK BEHAVIOR AT
THIS POINT WHICH WAS ALCOHOL
USE.
SO WHAT YOU SCENIC, AT LEAST IN
TERMS OF PATTERNS YOU'RE SEEING
INCREASE IN ALCOHOL USE, THIS IS
PERCENT WHO HAD TRIED ALCOHOL AT
ALL, YOU SERE SEEING THAT SAME
INCREASE WITH THE BAR.
WHAT'S INTERESTED HERE IS THAT
IF THE BART WAS PREDICTING RISK
BEHAVIOR AS WE HOPED, BART SCORE
HERE SHOULD PREDICT ALCOHOL USE
HERE.
THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
INSTEAD WHAT HAPPENS IS THE
CHANGE IN ALCOHOL FROM
YEAR-TO-YEAR IS CORRELATED ABOVE
AND BEYOND SENSATION SEEKING AND
IMPULSIVITY WITH THE CHANGE IN
BART SCORE.
SO IT'S THIS TYPE OF TIME LAG
CO-VARIANT ANALYSIS.
WHAT THIS WAS TELLING US IS THAT
IT ISN'T NECESSARILY THAT RT
IS THIS INGRAINED PERSONALITY
FACTOR BUT MORE IT MAYBE A
ANALOG OF ACTUAL RISK BEHAVIOR.
SO INSTEAD OF IT USED AS A
PREDICTOR, WE STILL HAVE LOTS OF
WAVES OF DATA SO I DON'T WANT TO
SAY THIS ULTIMATELY MAY NOT BEAR
OUT AS A PREDICTOR, BUT AT LEAST
AT THIS POINT WHERE WE'RE SEEING
THAT MAYBE MOST USEFUL IS IN
TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE
YOUTH DESPITE ALL DIFFERENCES
THAT EACH YOUTH EXPERIENCES IN
THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND THEIR
EXPERIENCE, THAT THE CHANGES
THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE REAL
WORLD ARE ALSO BEING REFLECTED
IN THE CHANGES THAT ARE
HAPPENING ON THE TASK IN THE
LABORATORY.
THIS TELLS US MAYBE THIS TASK
CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY MORE SO
AS AN ANALOG OF RISK BEHAVIOR
BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO STUDY RISK
PROCESSES IN THE REAL WORLD.
ESPECIALLY BASED ON REAL WORLD
RISK BEHAVIORS.
IF WE CAN STUDY THIS HERE, THIS
GIVES US OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK
AT NEURAL BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES,
OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT HOW IF
WE INTRODUCE SOME TYPE OF A
STRESS OR OTHER KIND OF
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR, HOW DOES
IT MOVE RISK BEHAVIOR AROUND.
IT GIVES OPPORTUNITIES WE DON'T
HAVE WHEN FOCUSED MERELY ON
THINKING ABOUT A LINEAR
PREDICTION.
THIS IS VERY NEW DATA SO I DON'T
WANT TO MAKE TOO MUCH OF THIS
BUT SEEMS LOOKING INTO THE
FOURTH YEAR DATA INSTEAD OF BART
SCORE YEAR ONE PREDICTING RISK
BEHAVIOR YEAR 4 WE'RE GETTING
THE OPPOSITE SO IT'S RIS I CAN
BEHAVIOR AT YEAR 1 IS PRETTY
STRONGLY PREDICTING BART
BEHAVIOR AT YEAR 4.
IT'S JUST GETTING THE DATA IN, I
DON'T WANT TO MAKE TOO MUCH OF
SOMETHING THAT MIGHT END UP
BEING ONE BLIP IN TERMS OF THE
DATA.
BUT IT DOES SUGGEST THAT THE
EXPERIENCES THAT YOU'RE HAVING
AS YOUTH IN EARLY YEARS IN TERMS
OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN AND
WHO YOUR PRENDZ ARE AND RISK
YOU'RE TAKING AND THINGS YOU'RE
DOING MAY HAVE AN IMPACT THAT
SHOWS UP ON THE SENSITIVE RISK
BEHAVIOR MEASURE IN THE
LABORATORY.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE
TOO MUCH OF THAT BUT TO SAY THAT
THIS GIVES A SENSE THAT WE MIGHT
BE ABLE TO USE THIS TO
UNDERSTAND RISK BEHAVIOR IN A
DIFFERENT WAY THAN ORIGINALLY
THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ANYONE
WANTS TO RAISE WE CAN DO IT THEN
BUT IF YOU HAVE THEM NOW FEEL
FREE TO ASK.
IN TERMS OF INTERIM WHERE WE ARE
KIND OF SAID IT SEVEN TIMES SO I
WON'T REPEAT IT WHERE THIS DOES
LEAD US IS TO THINK ABOUT HOW
CAN WE USE ANYTIME THE LAB AS A
WAY TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS.
SO THE FIRST STUDY WE DID WAS
ACTUALLY CONDUCTED BY ONE OF OUR
GRADUATE STUDENTS NOW TAKING A
FACULTY POSITION AT JOHNS
HOPKINS, LIZ REYNOLDS.
SHE WAS INTERESTED IN THE WAY
THAT PEERS IMPACT RISK TAKING
BEHAVIOR.
LARRY STEINBERG AND OTHERS HAVE
DONE SOME INTERESTING WORK
LOOKING AT PEER EFFECTS BUT WHAT
SHE WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN IS
TEASING APART PEERS HAVE IMPACT
BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE IN TERMS
OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO
ENCOURAGE RISK BEHAVIOR.
SO IN TERMS OF HER STUDY, AS
DISSERTATIONS GO JUST AS A
COMPLETELY SEPARATE POINT THOUGH
SHE'S NOT HERE TO HEAR THIS,
THIS WAS A REALLY HARD
DISSERTATION.
SHE BROUGHT IN 180 COLLEGE
STUDENTS AND THEY HAD TO BRING
IN TWO FRIENDS AND COME IN
TWICE.
SH=y]J WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD
ENOUGH POWER TO NOT JUST LOOK AT
THE EFFECT OF PEERS, GENERALLY
BUT THEN THAT SPECIFIC PEER
EFFECT OF A MORE ACTIVE VERSUS
THE PASSIVE ROLE.
SO IN TERMS OF THE STUDY, THERE
WERE THREE CONDITIONS.
THE FIRST CONDITION WAS AN ALONE
CONDITION WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL
PLAYED THE BART BY THEMSELVES SO
EVERYONE COMPLETED IT ALONE AND
THEY CAME BACK AGAIN.
AND THEY EITHER DID A LOAN
AGAIN, THAT WAS ONE GROUP, 60
INDIVIDUALS, THEN THERE WAS PEER
PRESENT.
SO THIS WAS ANOTHER 60, THEY DID
A LOAN FIRST THEN THEY CAME IN
WITH TWO FRIENDS, THE FRIENDS
WATCH WHAT THEY WERE DOING ON A
SECOND SCREEN IN THE ROOM BUT
NOT ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING OR
HAVE ANY ACTIVE IMPACT.
THE THIRD GROUP WAS ENCOURAGING
GROUP.
IN THIS CASE THE TWO FRIENDS
WITHOUT THE PARTICIPANT KNOWING
WERE TOLL -- THEY WERE PAID
BASED ON HOW MANY BALLOONS THE
FRIEND POPPED SO THEY WERE
ACTUALLY -- THEY WERE PAID TO
NOT ONLY JUST ENCOURAGE BUT TO
ENCOURAGE RECKLESS RISKY
BEHAVIOR.
SO THESE ARE OUR THREE
CONDITIONS.
SHE'S NOT OTHER TO SEE THIS.
THIS IS THREE CONDITIONS, WE
HAVE THIS IS THE ALONE CONDITION
AN BASICALLY NO CHANGE WHEN THEY
COME BACK IN AGAIN ALONE.
THE PEER PRESENT CONDITION,
MARGINALLY DIFFERENCE THAN A
LOAN.
THEN WE HAVE A NICE BUMP HERE
FOR ENCOURAGE.
WHAT THIS SUGGESTS IS IT ISN'T A
PEER BEING THERE BUT
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE PEER IS
DOING.
THIS HAS BIG IMPACT FOR A LOT OF
RESEARCH WHERE WE SHOW A PICTURE
OF THEIR PEERS AND SAY THINK
ABOUT BEING HERE OR A LOT IN
TERMS OF WHEN WE TRY TO DO THIS
WORK IN THE SCANNER WHERE WE
DONE USUALLY BRING THE FRIENDS
INTO THE SCANNER THAT I THINK
THAT KIND OF -- I'M NO
NEUROSCIENTIST BUT I THINK THAT
RUINS EVERYTHING.
SO THAT RAISES QUESTIONS BEING
SURE WHEN WE STUDY PEER EFFECT
THEY'RE CAREFUL WHAT IT IS
THEY'RE TRYING TO STUDY AND HOW
WE'RE DOING IT.
WHAT SHE'S DOING NOW BECAUSE OF
THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS IS TO TRY
TO SEE NOW WITHIN THIS GROUP,
THERE'S SOME THAT GO UP A LOT
AND OTHERS THAT DON'T MOVE THAT
MUCH SO WE'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT
ARE PARTICULAR MOD MODERATORS FOR
WHOM PEERS ARE HAVING THIS OR
ENGAGENING THIS BEHAVIOR,
THEY'RE IMPERVIOUS TO IT WHEREAS
FOR OTHERS THEY'RE INSENSITIVE
TO IT.
WHAT THIS SUGGESTIONS IS IT MAY
NOT BE NECESSARILY ANYTHING
WHERE THEY START OFF IN TERMS OF
RICKYNESS BUT HOW MUCH THE
RICKYNESS MOVES IN RESPONSE TO
THE PEERS.
I TELL YOU, WE JUST FINISHED A
STUDY WITH (INDISCERNIBLE) AND
KRISTEN (INDISCERNIBLE) AT YALE,
WHERE IT'S A MUCH MORE SIMPLE
DESIGN, IT'S ON THE COMPUTER,
YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF AD LESSEN
MATCHED BY GENDER ANDETH
NECESSITY.
THEY DO ELABORATE STUFF, YOU
PRETEND THEY'RE ON GOOGLE AND
MAKE THEM THINK THIS ADOLESCENT
IS IN THE ROOM.
EVERY TIME YOU PUMP UNDER THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPS AND IT
DOESN'T POP, THAT WOULD BE A
TIME TO BE MORE RISKY.
THE PEER JUST SAYS PUMP MORE.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO
THINKING WHAT PEERS SAY.
I CLEARLY ACCEPTED I'M TOO OLD
TO UNDERSTAND THAT AT THIS
POINT.
VERY SIMPLE, PUMP MORE AND WHEN
THEY PUMP A HIGHER AMOUNT AND IT
DOESN'T POP, IT SAYS JUST RIGHT.
BUT EVERY OTHER CONDITION IF
THEY POP IT, WHATEVER HAPPEN --
THEN THE PEER HAS NOTHING TO
SAY.
EVEN THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT IN RISK TAKING.
IN FACT, KIDS WHO WERE SMOKERS
WERE RISKIER THAN KIDS WHO
WEREN'T IN RESPONSE TO PEER
EFFECT.
THE MOST INTERESTING THING,
REMEMBER I SAID BEFORE THERE'S
NOT A GOOD CORRELATION BETWEEN
THE TASK AND SELF-REPORTED
IMPULSIVITY, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK
WITHOUT THE PEER VERSION IN THIS
STUDY YOU GET NO RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN IMPULSIVITY AND THE BAR
BUT IF YOU LOOK IN RESPONSE TO
PEER, THEN THE CORRELATION IS IN
THE .4.
SO WHAT THIS SUGGESTS IS THAT
WHEN SOMEONE IS FILLING OUT AN
IMPULSIVITY MEASURE THEY'RE
THINKING NOT JUST WHO THEY ARE
AND THIS ANTISEPTIC ENVIRONMENT
AND FILLING THIS OUT ALONE,
THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT WHO THEY
ARE GENERALLY.
WHICH OFTEN INCLUDES THEIR PEERS
AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
INFLUENCES.
SO WHEN WE CREATE SOMETHING MORE
SIMILAR IN A SITUATION THEY
WOULD BE IMPULL SI WE SEE MORE
MEASURES.
THIS IS A SMALLER STUDY, 40
PARTICIPANTS SO WE NEED MORE
DATA TO REPLICATE AND SAY THAT
STRONG THROUGH, BUT IT WAS
INTERESTING TO NOT SEE IT IN ONE
CASE AND TO SEE IT IN THE OTHER.
AND YOU CAN STUDY MOTIVATIONAL
MECHANISMS, THIS GETS INTO
THOUGH WE MY NOT NECESSARILY BE
ABLE TO THINK ABOUT HIV RESK IN
BART PREDICTING -- RISK BUT HIV
RISK AND VULNERABILITY TO RISK
TAKING AND WHAT MOTIVATES IN AN
ADOLESCENT TO BE RISKY OR NOT
RISKY.
THIS IS A STUDY DONE BY A SOCIAL
SCIENTIST INMY OUR LAB,
(INDISCERNIBLE), SHE WAS VERY
INTERESTED IN MODEST FRAMING
EFFECTS IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN
IMPACT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE TASK.
HER TWO QUESTIONS, STUDY ONE,
WHAT IF WE COULD ENHANCE OR
DETRACT THE SALIENCE OF THE GAIN
OR THE LOSS IN TERMS OF WHAT
HAPPEN ON THE TASK AN SECOND
ONE, ONCE YOU HAVE LOW RISK WHAT
ARE THE FACTORS THAT KEEP
SOMEONE FROM BECOMING MORE
RISKY?
I'LL EXPLAIN, THAT WAS
CONFUSING.
I'LL EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY WHEN
WE GET TO STUDY 2.
FIRST STUDY 65 COLLEGE STUDENTS,
THE ISSUE OF FOCUSING ON
MINIMIZING LOSSES OR MAXIMIZING
GAINS.
REMEMBER WHAT THE TEST LOOKED
LIKE BEFORE.
WE MERELY PUT A PLUS SIGN OR A
MINUS SIGN NEXT TO MONEY
ACCUMULATING ON THAT BALLOON.
IN SOME VERSIONS WE DONE SHOW
ACCUMULATION AT ALL BUT IN THIS
CASE EVERY PUMP, 5, 10, 15, 20
CENTS, ALL IT SAYS IS IN THE
FOCUS ON GAINS, IT SAYS THIS IS
HOW MUCH YOU CAN MAKE IF YOU
PRESS COLLECT.
THE OTHER ONE HAS THE
ANYTHINGTIVE SIGN, THIS IS HOW
MUCH YOU CAN LOSE IF THE BALLOON
POPS.
SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE
IN THE TASK.
JUST MERELY WHETHER WE'RE TRYING
TO FOCUS THE PARTICIPANT ON THE
GAIN OR THE LOSS.
I WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS SLOWLY SO
IT'S CLEAR.
WE DID THIS WITHIN SUBJECTS SO
YOU HAD THE FIRST BAR REGARDLESS
WHICH CONDITION YOU GOT AND THE
SECOND BAR AND THEN HERE YOU
HAVE MAXIMIZING GAINS AND HERE
YOU HAVE MINIMIZING LOSSES SO
THE FIRST IMPORTANT THING, WHEN
YOU GET MAXIMIZING GAINS FIRST,
FOR THOSE PARTICIPANTS, AROUND
41 PUMPS.
FOR THOSE MINUS SIGN FIRST
THEY'RE ABOUT 35 PUMPS.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIX OR
SO PUMP DIFFERENCE JUST IN TERMS
OF WHETHER YOU HAVE A PLUS OR
MINUS SIGN THERE.
THE GROUP WE'RE INTERESTED IN IS
THE GROUP THAT HAS THE
MINIMIZING LOSS.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS NOW WHEN WE
FLIP THEM OVER TO THE OTHER, DO
THEY PRESERVE THAT LOW LEVEL OF
RISK TAKING OR NOW WHEN THEY GET
THE PLUS SIGN DO THEY JUST ENUP
LOOKING LIKE THE GROUP THAT GOT
THE PLUS SIGN FIRST.
WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT COMPLETELY
BUT THEY BASICALLY GO BACK UP TO
THE SAME LEVEL.
WHATEVER IMPACT THE MINUS SIGN
HAD INITIALLY, BY THE TIME THEY
GET THE PLUS SIGN AGAIN IT'S
GONE.
THIS IS A LITTLE LEAP BUT IF YOU
THINK ABOUT PREVENTION
PROGRAMMING, WE THINK ABOUT AT A
YOUNG AGE WE TRY TO GET KIDS AND
TELL THEM DRUGS ARE BAD, DONE DO
THIS AND THAT, THESE ARE ALL THE
THINGS THAT YOU SHOULDN'T DO.
THAT HAS AN IMPACT.
BUT THAT IMPACT ONCE THEY START
GETTING OTHER MESSAGES FROM
PEERS AND OTHER PEOPLE, THAT
IMPACT CAN BE DRAMATICALLY
MINIMIZED.
SO WHAT SHE WAS INTERESTED IN IS
HOW CAN CAN WE PRESERVE THIS
LOWER LEVEL OF RISK TAKING ONCE
WE TAKE THE NEGATIVE SIGN AWAY?
SO THIS IS THE SECOND STUDY, SHE
USED A SUBLIMINAL PRIMING
PARADIGM WHERE ESSENTIALLY WHAT
HAPPENS IS BEFORE EACH TRIAL
THEY GOT WORD THAT WAS EITHER
THAT RISK IS BAD, OR BEING
CAUTIOUS IS GOOD.
SO THE POINT HERE IS MOVING AWAY
FROM NECESSARILY WHAT YOU
SHOULDN'T DO AN MORE TOWARDS
WHAT YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON.
THEY'RE BOTH ANTI-RISK MESSAGES
BUT ONE DOES IT THROUGH TRYING
TO PLACE THE SPOTLIGHT ON THE
BENEFITS OF BEING CAUTIOUS WHERE
THE OTHER PUTS ON REASONS WHY
YOU SHOULDN'T BE RISKY.
SO IT'S A VERY SUBTLE
MANIPULATION.
WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS STUDY WE'RE
PREPARING THIS FOR PUBLICATION
NOW, WE START WITH MINIMIZING
LOSSES, EVERYTHING IS FAIRLY
LOW, THE GROUP THAT GETS RISK
TAKING BAD IN SUBNAL --
SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE LOOKS BEFORE
THE PLUS SIGN.
NOW THEY GET THE PLUS SIGN AN
ESSENTIALLY THE MESSAGE HAD NO
IMPACT.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKED
LIKE WHEN WE HAD NEGATIVE TO
PLUS BEFORE WITHOUT SUBLIMINAL
MESSAGE.
NOW IT ESSENTIALLY DOESN'T MOVE
AND IS FLAT WHEN WE HAVE THE
CAUTIOUS IS GOOD.
IN TERMS OF THINKING OF WAYS TO
THINK ABOUT MOTIVATION YOU CAN
USE A TASK LIKE THIS TO SEE
THESE KIND OF IN THE MOMENT
CHANGES.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THESE CHANGES
WOULD PERSIST BEYOND CONTEXT OF
SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE, THOSE ARE
ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT WE DO
NEXT.
WE CAN SHOW MOMENTARY CHANGES
WITH THE TASK.
ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO
MENTION REAL QUICK, WE HAVE ALSO
BEEN LOOKING AT DIFFERENT
PSYCHOPATHOLOGIES IN WHICH
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS MORE RISKY
WHEN THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY
EVOKED.
TWO EXAMPLES OF THAT, ONE IS
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
AND THE OTHER WOULD BE SOCIAL
PHOBIA.
IF IF WE REALLY THINK ABOUT THE
THEORY OF BOTH OF THESE
DISORDERS WE DON'T EXPECT RISK
TAKING OR OTHER PROBLEM
BEHAVIORS WHEN THERE'S NO
EMOTIONAL EVOKEATION.
UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF STUDIES
WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW BORDERLINE
DISORDERS OR SOCIAL PHOBIA FOR
THOSE WITHOUT.
WE OFTEN TEST IN KIND OF VERY
STABLE CONDITIONS.
AND WE'RE KIND OF SURPRISED WHEN
WE DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE.
WE HAVE SEVERAL STUDIES IN OUR
LAB WHERE WE DIDN'T FIND
DIFFERENCES WITH THE GROUPS IN
THE TASK AND WE THOUGHT MAYBE
THE TASK ISN'T PICKING UP ON THE
DIFFERENCE.
SO ALEXIS (INDISCERNIBLE) WHO IS
HERE IN OUR LAB DID A THESIS
USING BORDERLINE AND USING
EMOTIONAL SCRIPT AND FOUND THE
BORDERLINE PARTICIPANTS GOT
SIGNIFICANTLY RISKIER AFTER THE
SCRIPT AND THE CONTROL ACTUALLY
GOT LESS RISKY.
WE FOUND THE EXACT SAME THING IN
A STUDY WITH MONIQUE AND DANNY
PINE WITH SOCIAL PHOBIA WHERE WE
USED A MODIFIED TREER TASK TO
PRODUCE SOCIAL ANXIETY, THE
SOCIALLY PHOBIC KIDS LOOKED LESS
RISKY BASELINE BUT MORE RISKY
AFTER THE SOCIAL FOAB YOU
INDUCTION OR THE SOCIAL FEAR
INDUCTION, WHEREAS THE
CONTROLLED WENT IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THINKING
ABOUT WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH OH WE
HAVE THIS TASK LET'S USE IT YOU
CAN FIND THINGS THIS PLACES YOU
WEREN'T FINDING THEM BEFORE.
THIS LEAVES ANOTHER LIMITATION
IN THINKING, THAT'S WE HAVE ONLY
THOUGHT RISK TAKING IN TERMS OF
POSITIVE REINFORCE M, ESPECIALLY
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
ADOLESCENCE, THAT'S COMMON.
KIDS, HAVE YOU WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN
HEROIN WITHDRAWAL, WE THINK
ABOUT ADULTS, PEOPLE USING DRUGS
FOR REALLY LONG TIME, THINKING
ABOUT THE DRUG PROVIDES A
NEGATIVE REENER TO GET OVER THE
EMOTIONAL -- REINFORCERS TO GET
OVER THE EMOTIONAL STATE.
WHEN YOU THINK KIDS YOU DON'T
THINK ABOUT THAT AS MUCH.
HOWEVER, IF YOU THINK THE TYPES
OF EXPERIENCES THAT LEAD KIDS TO
USE SUBSTANCES AND TAKE OTHER
RISKS, YOU CAN OFTEN SEE THAT
THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF
AVERSIVE STIMULATION THAT PUSHES
THEM IN THAT DIRECTION AND BEING
RISKY AMELIORATES THAT.
NOT IN A PHYSIOLOGICAL WAY, AS
YOU MIGHT SEE WITH A DRUG LIKE
HEROIN BUT THINK ABOUT AN
AWKWARD 12-YEAR-OLD T A PARTY
AND OTHER KIDS ARE DRINKING AB
YOU'RE LIKE A GOOD KID AND
YOU'RE IN YOUR HEAD THINKING U
NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THIS AND I
PROMISED MY MOM I WOULDN'T.
ALL THE OTHER KIDS ARE DRINKING
AND MAKING FUN OF YOU AND THE
PRESSURE IS ON YOU.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO
MAKE THAT GO AWAY, IS TO DRINK.
SO YOU CAN THINK OF SUBSTANCE
ABUSE IN THAT CASE NOT AS
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENTS BUT
NEGATIVE REAM FORCEMENT BUT
THERE -- REINFORCEMENT BUT AS
FAR AS I'M AWARE THERE'S NO
BEHAVIORAL MEASURES THAT GET AT
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT AS A
PROCESS.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS GOING ALONG
THE SIMPSON LINE, THIS IS THE
MARYLAND RESOURCE FOR BEHAVIORAL
UNDERSTANDING OF REINFORCEMENT
FROM NEGATIVE STIMULI, WHICH WE
HAD FIRST THEN WE DID THE
ACRONYM.
SO WE USED THE SAME STRUCTURE
BUT NOW INSTEAD OF O PUMPING THE
BALLOON FOR MONEY POSITIVE
REINFORCEMENT, NO ONE TALKS AND
SAYING THESE RISK TAKING TEST
ARE POSITIVE REINFORCE M BUT IF
YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT'S WHAT
IT IS.
HOWEVER, NOW, WE HAVE THE
PARTICIPANT WHERE HEADPHONES.
THERE'S A VERY AVERSIVE NOISE IN
IT.
WE ALSO THOUGHT ABOUT USING
EMOTIONAL SCRIPPS THERE TOO BUT
RIGHT NOW IT'S A WHITE NOISE
WITH THIS HONKING SOUND EVERY
NOW AND THEN AT AN UNPREDICTABLE
INTERVAL.
SO YOU'RE LISTENING TO THIS AND
NOW YOU PUMP UP THE BALLOON TO
ACTUALLY MAKE THE NOISE GO AWAY.
SO WHEREAS BEFORE YOU'RE TAKING
RISKS TO OBTAIN MONEY, NOW
YOU'RE TAKING RISK TO MAKE A
NEGATIVE STIMULUS SUBSIDE ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED SO
I'LL GO THROUGH IT SLOWLY, MAYBE
TBIES.
THIS IS ONE OTHER PROBLEM WITH
NEGATIVE REINFORCE M, IT'S NOT
AS SIMPLE, THE TESTS AREN'T AS
INTUITIVE BUT HOPEFULLY WE GOT
CLOSE.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, SO
YOU HAVE THIS UNINFLATED BALLOON
AND YOU HAVE THIS LITTLE DIAL
HERE AND YOU CAN CLICK IN THE
NUMBER OF PUMPS.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY
ABOUT WHETHER ON THE TASK YOU
SHALL HAVE PEOPLE MAKE THE PUMP
INDIVIDUALLY OR TYPE THE NUMBER
IN AND HAVE THE BALLOON INFLATE
BY ITSELF, THAT'S ANOTHER
PRESENTATION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
BUT JUST TO SAY, WE HAVE DONE IT
IN BOTH WAYS, IT'S EASIER TO
SHOW HERE IN TERMS OF THE DIAL.
SO BASICALLY YOU MAKE A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF PUMPS, IN THIS CASE
48.
NOW WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE A
DURATION THAT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN
TO THE THE NOISE FOR.
LOTS OF DECISIONS WE HAD TO
MAKE.
DID YOU WANT THE NOISE THE WHOLE
TIME THEY'RE DECIDING BUT WE
DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO RUSH THEIR
DECISION?
AND WE ALSO IN THINKING ABOUT
USING THIS ULTIMATELY TO STUDY
NEURAL PROCESSES, WE ALSO WANTED
VERY CLEAR PARTS OF THE TASK SO
THAT YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE WHAT
WAS HAPPENING AT THOSE DIFFERENT
PARTS.
YOU HAVE THIS DECISION PERIOD,
DECIDE HOW MANY PUMPS YOU WANT
TO MAKE AND THE DURATION OF
NOISE LASTS FOR THE NUMBER OF
PUMPS.
SO IN THIS CASE IT'S A LITTLE
BIT MORE THAN HALF.
IF YOU WERE TO MAKE MORE PUMPS
THEN THE DURATION, THE GREEN
WOULD ONLY SAY GO UP TO HERE, IF
YOU WERE TO MAKE FEWER PUMP IT
IS GREEN MIGHT GO TO THERE.
SO YOU HAVE A CLEAR IMMEDIATE
CONSEQUENCE OF HOW MUCH RISK
YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE TESTIMONY
MORE RISK THE LESS NOISE YOU
GET.
WE ALSO TRIED HAVING IT TITRATE
THE VOLUME, BUT THAT DIDN'T
WORK.
VOLUME IS SO -- FIRST OFF, WE
HAVE TO USE THE SAFE LEVEL.
VOLUME IS NOT LINEAR.
SO AS SOON AS IT COMES DOWN A
LITTLE IT'S INEFFECTIVE.
SO WE HAD TO USE THE MAXIMUM
VOLUME AND TITRATE THE AMOUNT OF
TIME.
SO YOU MAKE YOUR NUMBER OF
PUMPS, YOU HAVE YOUR
CONSEQUENCE, THEN YOU FINE OUT
WHETHER THE BALLOON POPPED OR
NOT.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE
DECISION YOU MAKE METHODOLOGICAL
HAS TO BE DRIVEN BY WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO STUDY IN THE REAL
WORLD.
MY FIRST IMPULSE WAS IF THEY POP
THE BALLOON, DRANK NOISE BACK
UP.
BECAUSE THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.
BUT IF YOUR AN ADOLESCENT AND
YOU'RE DECIDING TO DRINK IN THAT
CASE, THE NEGATIVE THING,
BASICALLY YOU DRINK TO MAKE THE
PEER PRESSURE GO AWAY.
IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS TO YOU
IT'S NOT I GET SO MUCH PEER
PRESSURE THAT'S AKIN TO PUMPING
NOISE BACK UP.
WHAT THE CONSEQUENCE IS, IT'S A
LOSS OF AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE
FUTURE.
I GET A DUI, SO NOW I CAN'T GO
TO COLLEGE.
OR I GET IN TROUBLE WITH MY
PARENTS SO I DON'T GET TO GO OUT
OR I RUIN MY FUTURE: IN THIS
CASE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, GETS A
LITTLE TRICKY, WE CAN'T PUMP THE
NOISE BACK UP BECAUSE THAT WOULD
BE THE WRONG CONSEQUENCE.
WE HAVE TO TAKE AWAY AN
OPPORTUNITY IN THE FUTURE AND IT
HAS TO BE PROBABLISTIC.
SO NOW ALREADY THIS IS SO MUCH
MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE BART,
THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE.
AND SO WHAT WE DO IN THIS CASE
IS THERE'S A LOTTERY, A WHEEL AT
THE END OF EVERY FIVE TRIALS AN
EVERY BALLOON YOU POP YOU LOSE A
LOTTERY TICKET.
SO IF YOU'RE SAFE YOU'LL KEEP
YOUR LOTTERY TICKETS.
IF YOU'RE RISKY, YOU WON'T
EXPERIENCE MUCH NOISE BUT NOT
KEEP YOUR LOTTERY TICKETS.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT LOTTERIES, WE
HAVE A PARAMETRIC
STUDY, $1, $3, $9, WE PUT THAT
EFFORT AN IT REALLY DOESN'T
MATTER.
WE DO KNOW THE BIGGER THE
LOTTERY, THE FEWER PUMPS THEY
MAKE THAT'S HARDLY ROCKET
SCIENCE BUT IN TERMS OF ANY
OTHER RELATIONSHIPS IT DIDN'T
MATTER.
SO IN THIS CASE IT POPS SO NOW
THE RED WOULD BE A BALLOON THAT
YOU POPPED AND THESE THREE
GREENS ARE BALLOONS YOU DIDN'T.
YOU HAVE THE LOTTERY AND YOU WIN
OR YOU LOSE.
THAT'S BASICALLY THE TEST.
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS A NUMBER
OF PUMPS YOU MAKE TO MAKE THE
NEGATIVE STIMULUS GO AWAY.
ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THAT?
HOPEFULLY IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS
CLEAR AND NOT BECAUSE IT FEELS
AWKWARD TO ASK.
SO THIS IS OUR SUMMARY T THE
PUMPS REDUCE AVERSIVE NOISE,
PUMPING TOUCH CAN RESULT IN A
LATER LOSS OR AN OPPORTUNITY
COST.
THE NOISE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE
BALLOON POPPING AND IT'S
SEPARATED IN TIME.
EACH GROUP HAS A DIFFERENT VALUE
IN TERMS OF HUE IS A LOTTERY
SCALE YOU SEE THREE, NINE, ONE,
THREE, ONE, NINE, ALL THE
DIFFERENT LOTTERY GROUPS.
THE OUTCOME MEASURE IS THE
NUMBER OF PUMPS.
SO THIS WAS NIAAA STUDY WITH 163
COLLEGE PRESHMEN, NO HEARING
IMPAIRMENTS, OTHERWISE WE TOOK
WHOEVER CAME AS LONG AS THEY HAD
HAD SOME EXPERIENCE USING
ALCOHOL.
SO 95.7% HAD EVER DRANK, SO I'M
GOING TO SHOW YOU THOUGH
COMPARABLE, I'M GOING TO SHOW
YOU THE REGULAR DRINKER.
SO THE FIRST THINK IS, THE FIRST
TIME WE HAVE USED THE TASK, IS
IT RELIABLE?
IF YOU WERE TO DO A SPLIT HALF
YOU CAN SEE HERE YOU HAVE THE
MEAN PUMP ON THE FIRST HALF OF
THE GAME AND ON THE SECOND HALF
OF THE GAME AND YOU HAVE A NICE
LITTLE LINE HERE SO THE
CORRELATION IS ACTUALLY .9 SO
RELIABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY
DO IN THE BEGINNING TO WHAT THEY
DO IN THE END.
SIMILAR TO THE OTHER GAME, I
THEY START TO FEEL MORE, I DON'T
KNOW IF COMFORTABLE WITH THE
NOISE OR MORE AWARE OF WANTING
THE MONEY, BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY
MAKE LESS PUMPS AS A GROUP OVER
TIME.
BUT AGAIN, THE RANK ORDERING
DOESN'T CHANGE.
SO WE HAVE NICE RELIABILITY ON
THE TASK.
IN TERMS OF THE RESULT, THIS IS
IN -- I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF
IT'S COME OUT YET BUT THE PAPER
IS IN ACER.
SO WHERE WE DONE GET
CORRELATIONS WITH SELF-ROART
MEASURES WITH THE REGULAR BAR,
MUCH MORE WITH ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
WE GOT GOOD CORRELATIONS IN
TERMS OF CONSTRUCTS THAT SHOULD
MATTER HERE.
SO WE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH
WITH TRADE ANXIETY, DEPRESSIVE
SYMPTOMSING AND THEN THE
DIFFICULTY IN EMOTION REGULATION
SCALE.
PEOPLE MAKING MORE PUMP, FORGET
THE MONEY I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I
HAVE TO MAKE THE NOISE GO AWAY
WERE THE SAME ONES SCORING
HIGHER IN EMOTION REGULATION
PROBLEMS, DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS
AND TRADE ANXIETY.
WHAT'S ALSO INTERESTING IS IT
WAS RELATED TO DISENGAGEMENT
COPING.
SO THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING IN
EFFECT THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO
FIND.
WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING IS
THAT IT WAS CORRELATED WITH
SELF-REPORTED PROBLEMS.
SO THE MORE THAT YOU TOOK THE
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT RESPONSE
THE MORE PROBLEMS YOU REPORTED,
IT WASN'T RELATED TO FREQUENCY
OF DRINKING BUT ACTUAL PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH DRINKING.
THIS IS A MODEST CORRELATION BUT
WHAT WAS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING
LESS MAGNITUDE OF CORRELATION AN
MORE ABOUT SPECIFICITY WAS IF WE
LOOKED AT DRINKING MOTIVE AND
YOU THINK ABOUT THE FOUR MOST
COMMON MOTIVE.
IF YOU HAVE COPING AND
CONFORMITY, AND SOCIALIZATION AN
EPIENHANCEMENT, THE BOTTOM TWO
ARE POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT, THE
TOP TWO ARE NEGATIVE
REINFORCEMENT.
SO INTERESTINGLY THE MORE YOU
SAY YOUR MOTIVES TO DRINK ARE
ABOUT WANTING TO COPE AND
CONFORM, THE MORE THAT YOU WERE
PUMPING THE BALLOON UP TO AVOID
THE NOISE.
AND THESE ARE PRETTY RE
SEMIABLE CORRELATIONS.
TO THE EXTEN YOU REPORTED MOTIVE
BASED ON SOCIALIZATION AN
ENHANCEMENT WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED.
SO THAT'S -- AGAIN, THINKING
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE
TASKS, SPECIFICITY IS REALLY
IMPORTANT.
AND REALLY BEING ABLE TO KNOW
WHAT WE CAN MEASURE AND WHAT WE
CAN'T MEASURE.
THIS IS A FIRST STUDY, WE CHECK
AD SECOND YEAR WITH THE SAME
STUDENTS SO WE'LL BE FOLLOWING
THAT UP.
SO IN GENERAL, KIND OF THINKING
WHAT WE HAVE HERE, WE'RE
OPTIMISTIC THESE BEHAVIORAL
MEASUREMENTS ARE A USEFUL TOOL
FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW AND WHY
ADOLESCENTS ARE RISKY AND BE
ABLE TO STUDY PARTICULAR
PROCESSING THAT WE THINK ARE
IMPORTANT.
THE BOOK IS STILL OUT WHETHER WE
CAN ULTIMATELY USE IT TO PREDICT
BEHAVIOR BUT I THINK IN THE
SHORT TERM, FOCUSING ON WHERE
ITS STRENGTHS ARE WOULD BE
REALLY IMPORTANT.
I DID JUST WANT TO TWO OR THREE
MINUTES, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO
THE END BUT JUST TO TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT A CLINICAL
EXTENSION.
AND THIS IS BASED ON SOMETHING
CALLED BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION.
THE IDEA FOCUSING ON POSITIVE
REINFORCEMENT AND SPECIFICALLY
IMPACT OF AVERSIVE STIMULI IN
TERMS OF NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT
LEADS TO IN TERMS OF OUR LAB
THINKING WHAT MIGHT BE POTENTIAL
INTERVENTION TARGETS.
WE HAVE TAKEN BEHAVIORAL
ACTIVATION WIFE ACTUALLY A
TREATMENT USED FOR DEPRESSION
BASED ON LEARNING THEORY.
THOUGH IT'S FOCUSED ON
DEPRESSION, IF YOU REALLY LOOK
AT WHAT THE EARLY THEORISTS SAID
THEY TALK THE IMPACT OF
DEPRESSION WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS
NOT A LOT OF IMMEDIATE
GUARANTEED REWARD FOR HEALTHY
BEHAVIOR.
AND THERE WAS AN OVERABUNDANCE
OF NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR THAT
HEALTHY BEHAVIOR OR IT WASN'T
PAYING ATTENTION, ACTUALLY PUN
NISHED AND -- PUNISHED AND
ALTERATIVE BEHAVIORS DID HAVE
ALTERNATIVE UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOR,
IN THIS CASE DEPRESSED BEHAVIORS
DID HAVE A LOT OF IMMEDIATE
REWARD.
SO THE ARGUMENT WAS PEOPLE
CONTINUED TO BE DEPRESSED AT
SOME LEVEL, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S
NOT THE ONLY REASON BUT FROM THE
LEARNINGkd&ã PERSPECTIVE, CONTINUE
TO BE DEPRESS AT SOME LEVEL
BECAUSE UNHEALTHY THINGSTHEY DID
GOT ATTENTION AND HEALTHY THINGS
THEY DID EITHER DIDN'T OR
ACTUALLY WERE PUNISHED.
SO WHAT THIS DOES IS PRESENT A
PERSPECTIVE IN THINKING ABOUT
APPLYING THAT TO SUBSTANCE USE
AND RISK TAKING, WHERE YOU WANT
TO FOCUS ON -- IT'S ALSO IN LINE
WITH STUFF LIKE DELAYED
DISCOUNTING AND INTERTEMPORAL
CHOICE, REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON
GETING A LOT OF POSITIVE
REINFORCE M M FOR HEALTHY
APPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS TO TRY TO
REDUCE RISK TAKING BEHAVIORS.
SO IT'S BASED ON THREE SIMPLE
THING, ONE IS DAILY MONITORING
WHERE YOU JUST BASICALLY LAY OUT
WHAT YOU HAVE DOING, GET A GOOD
SENSE WHAT YOUR PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR IS, DO IT EVERY DAY TO
PROVIDE VERY IMMEDIATE AND
GUARANTEED ATTENTION TO THESE
THINGS.
SECOND PIECE, IS KIND OF
FOCUSING ON DIFFERENT LIFE
AREAS, BUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT
WILL VALUES -- ARE VALUES AN
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THOSE LIFE
AREAS.
SO IN THIS CASE IN THE LIFE AREA
OF RELATIONSHIPS, A VALUE MIGHT
BE TO BE A BETTER SON.
VALUES ARE FINE BUT THEY'RE
DELAYED.
SO FROM THAT WE HAVE DAILY
ACTIVITIES OF THINGS THAT WOULD
THEN BE CONNECTED TO THAT VALUE.
SO BEING A BETTER SON ISN'T JUST
YEAH, IP TO BE A BETTER SON
BECAUSE WHO DOESN'T?
IT'S TELLING MY PARENTS I LOVE
THEM EVERY DAY, MAYBE EVEN WHAT
TIME.
MAKE A SPECIAL BREAKFAST WITH
MOM ON SATURDAY, BE ON TIME FOR
SCHOOL, BASICALLY VERY SPECIFIC
THINGS THAT COULD NOW BE
REWARDED AND ATTENDED TO ON A
DAILY BASIS TO TRY TO COMPETE
WITH WHAT THOSE ALTERNATIVES
MIGHT BE.
FROM THAT YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY
PLANNING OUT YOUR LIFE.
SO HERE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS
THAT I'M GOING TO DO AND IN THIS
CASE AT THESE SPECIFIC TIMES
WHERE I'M SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME
IN BED, WATCHING TOO MUCH TV,
NOW I'M GOING TO PLAN TO DO A
FEW KEY THINGS THAT WILL BE PART
OF THE BIGGER VALUE.
BUT MUCH MORE WHAT HAPPENS IN
THE MOMENT.
IN THIS CASE THEN HOLDING
YOURSELF ACCOUNTABLE.
THIS COMES BACK TO THE IDEA OF
IMMEDIATE AND GUARANTEED.
DID YOU DO THESE THINGS AND WHAT
HAPPENED?
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH
DETAIL BUT THIS IS THE BASIC
IDEA OF THE PROGRAM.
WE VIEW THIS NOW ACROSS SEVERAL
ADDICTIONS, THERE'S BEEN THREE
RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS, ONE
IN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL
PSYCHIATRY, SECOND WAS JCCP.
THE THIRD WAS IN JOURNAL OF
COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY.
SO ON THE FIRST ONE WE REDUCED
TREATMENT DROP-OUT, AT THE
HARBOR LIGHT DRUG TREATMENT
CENTER IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH
DSMC., INDIVIDUALS WHO GOT THIS
PROGRAM FIVE TIMES COMPARED TO
INDIVIDUAL WHOSE GOT A
SUPPORTIVE COUNSELING TO CONTROL
FOR ATTENTION AN CONTACT TIME.
EVERYONE ELSE GOT THE MAIN
TREATMENT PROGRAM.
THERE WAS 24% DROP-OUT WHICH IS
WHAT YOU EXPECT IN THE CONTROL
GROUP AND 4% DROP OUT IN THIS
GROUP WHICH WAS ONLY FIVE
SESSIONS.
IN THE IMMUNITY SMOKERS WE HAD
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN RELAPSE
AND THEN IN THE LAST ONE, IN THE
PROBLEM DRINKING WE DID ANYTIME
A UNIVERSITY 100 CLASS WHICH WAS
BASICALLY EVERY WEEK.
THE KIDS CAME IN AND GOT TWO
HOURS ON LIKE WHERE IS THE
LIBRARY AND HOW DO YOU PUT A
BANANA ON A CONDOM ON A BANANA
AND THAT STUFF.
AND WE JUST INSERTED A HALF HOUR
OF THIS APPROACH EVERY WEEK.
AND WE REDUCE PROBLEM DRINKING
IN THE GROUP SIGNIFICANTLY THAT
GOT THE BEHAVIORAL COMPONENT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING THIS IN A
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER IN
NEW JERSEY AND THEY DO IT EVERY
DAY AND COUNSELORS PROVIDE THE
PROGRAM.
AND THE VERY LAST SLIDE IS JUST
A LITTLE ATTENTION TO A STUDY
THAT LAURA MCFEARSON IN OUR LAB
IS DOING, SHE'S USING THIS
APPROACH TO STUDY WHAT WE DID
WITH ADULTS BUT WITH
ADOLESCENTS, ONE OF THE BIG
PROBLEMS WITH TREATMENT
DEVELOPMENT STUDY IS WE DON'T
KNOW WHY THINGS WORK, WE THINK
IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE INCREASING
REWARD SENSITIVITY OR MORE
POSITIVE THINGS IN ENVIRONMENT
OR HOW THEY EXPERIENCE BUT WE
REALLY DONE KNOW.
YOU CAN USE SELF-REPORT
MEASURESES AND TRY THE DO
MODERATION.
U'S NOT -- IT'S NOT QUITE THE
SAME AS UNDERSTANDING THINGS AS
A PROCESS LEVEL.
SO SHE'S DOING A STUDY WHERE
SHE'S ACTUALLY USING IT WITH
(INDISCERNIBLE) USING IMAGING TO
REALLY TRY TO TRACK WHAT'S
HAPPENING TO THE YOUTH THROUGH
THIS PROGRAM NOT ONLY TO STOP
QUITTING SMOKING BUT TO DO THIS
REINFORCEMENT BASED PROGRAM.
SO I THINK I'M RUNNING OUT OF
TIME SO I WANTED TO THANK
EVERYONE FROM OUR LAB, AND I
STILL HAVE WILL AKLIN HERE
THOUGH HE'S RIGHT THERE AN LONG
GONE.
AND THEN BROWN WHERE I WENT TO
INTERNSHIP AND YALE WHERE I
COMPLETED MY SABBATICAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND IT WAS AN HONOR TO BE HERE.
[APPLAUSE]
ANY QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(OFF MIC)
>> I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT LINE,
WHAT WE HAD DONE ORIGINALLY WAS
WE ASKED THEM ABOUT WHERE DO YOU
THINK THE BALLOON POPPED AND
THEY WERE WAY OFF.
IT WASN'T SPECIFIC TO ANYTHING.
I THINK THEN WE WERE WAY TOO
FOCUSED ON PREDICTING THINGS
INSTEAD OF UNDERSTANDING SO WE
DIDN'T FOLLOW-UP IN THIS WAY.
BUT EVEN JUST AT THE LEVEL OF
THE RISKIEST KID, IS HE RISKY
BECAUSE HE'S REWARD-SEEKING OR
BECAUSE HE'S PUNISHMENT
INSENSITIVE?
WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A GREAT
ARTICLE IN OUTSIDE MAGAZINE
WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE
READS THIS BUT A YEAR AND A HALF
AGO, AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT
WAS STUDYING ADVENTURE SKIERS
AND OTHER PEOPLE AND RUSS
PALDRICK HAD LIKE THE CRAZY GUY
FROM THE GROUP DO THE BART,
OBVIOUSLY IT'S ONE PERSON BUT IT
WAS INTERESTING FOR THAT ONE
PERSON, IT WAS PURELY ABOUT
PUNISHMENT SENSITIVITY AND NOT
AT ALL ABOUT THE RISK PIECE,
WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED IT
WOULD BE.
NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ANSWERS
THAT QUESTION BUT IT WAS REALLY
INTERESTING IN THE WAY SHE
HIGHLIGHTED IT AND TO JUST EVEN
BE THINKING ABOUT HOW DO WE
BREAK IT DOWN IN THESE PROCESSES
ASIDE FROM BASIC UNDERSTANDING,
THIS WOULD REALLY BE USEFUL FOR
INTERVENTION BECAUSE IF SOMEONE
IS BEING RISKY BECAUSE OF
PUNISHMENT INSENSITIVITY AND
WE'RE SPENDING TIME ON REWARD
SEEKING PIECE, IT'S NOT REALLY
MAKING ANY SENSE.
(OFF MIC)
>> WE HAVE, WHEN I SAID BEFORE,
I GROSSLY SPENT THROUGH THIS BUT
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TASK, YOU
HAVE THEM TYPE IN A NUMBER OF
PUMPS AND IT DOES IT ON ITS OWN,
CLEARLY THAT TAKES THAT PIECE
OUT OF IT, VERSUS WHEN THEY CAN
MANUALLY MAKE ALL THE PUMPS, WE
DON'T SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE
AREN'T DIFFERENT THINGS
HAPPENING.
BUT WE EXPECTED TO SEE A PRETTY
BIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THOSE
TWO MANIPULATIONS AND WE
HAVEN'T.
BUT WITHOUT DOING IT THE WAY
YOU'RE SUGGESTING AND ASKING
THOSE QUESTIONS AND ASSESSING
IT, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.
SO I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
THING TO DO.
(OFF MIC)
>> YEAH, DAVID YENCH HAS A RAP
BART AND HAS BEEN -- PUBLISHED A
FEW PAPERS AT THIS POINT.
IT'S ACTUALLY I BELIEVE WITH
TONES BASICALLY TWO LEVERS ONE
LEVER IS YOU PUMP IT UP LEVER,
THE OTHER LEVER IS THE COLLECT
LEVER AND THEY GET DIFFERENT
AMOUNTS OF FOOD AT THAT MOMENT.
I CAN'T TALK TOO INTELLIGENTLY
ABOUT THE NEURAL PART OF WHAT
HE'S DOING BUT ONE THING THAT IS
INTERESTING IS THAT ONE OF THE
BIGGEST FACTORS HE'S FOUND IS
THE VARYN 'T, NOT NECESSARILY
WHO IS RISKY OR LESS, WHICH RAT
IS MORE OR LESS RISKY, IT'S THE
RAT WHO MAKES 19 PUMPS ONE TIME
AND TWO ANOTHER TIME LOOKS
DIFFERENT THAN THE RAT WHO MAKES
8 OR 9 EVERY TIME THOUGH THEY'RE
AVERAGE NUMBER IS THE SAME.
SO IT ALLOWED HIM TO KIND OF
LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY WORK
THERE HAPPENING WITH THAT.
(OFF MIC)
>> YEAH.
AND THIS IS ONE PLACE WHERE I
THINK THINGS WORKED OUT THE WAY
WE EXPECT.
AT A VERY YOUNG AGE GIRLS ARE
RISKIER AND AS THEY GET OLDER
BOYS ARE RISKIER.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME PUBERTY
FINDINGS WHERE, THE PROBLEM IS
WE DIDN'T START COLLECTING
PUBERTY DATA UNTIL I THINK THE
THIRD YEAR OF THE PROJECT.
SO IT'S A TIME WHERE AB HALF
HAVE REACHED AND HAVE HAVEN'T.
WE CAN'T -- HALF HAVEN'T.
WE CAN'T SPEAK TO EARLY VERSUS
LATE PUBERTY BUT WE CAN SPEAK TO
DID IT HAPPEN OR NOT AND WE GET
A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
THE KIDS WHO HAVE HIT PUBERTY
ARE MUCH RISKIER.
WE CAN'T SPEAK TO IS IT EARLY OR
NOT BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS IF WE
FOLLOW THEM AS WE CONTINUE TO
FOLLOW THEM, IF IT'S TRULY ABOUT
EARLY PUBERTY, THEN THE KIDS WHO
HAVEN'T REACHED PUBERTY WHEN
THEY -- AS THEY REACH PUBERTY,
I'M SORRY, THEY SHOULDN'T GET
RISKY, WE SHOULD STILL HAVE THAT
DIFFERENCE, BUT IF IT'S NOT
EARLY PUBERTY, AS THOSE KIDS
REACH PUBERTY THEY SHOULD RISE
UP AND OOH MEET THE OTHERS SO
KIND OF A BACK DOORWAY TO ANSWER
IT BUT ULTIMATELY WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT IMPACT OF
PUBERTY.
I KIND OF JUMPED FROM THE GENDER
BUT IN THE GENDER WE DO SEE THAT
VERY RELIABLY.
ONE OF THE FEW THINGS I PUT A
GUN TO MY HEAD AND SAY I THINK
WE'RE GOING TO GET IT.
(OFF MIC)
>> YEAH, SO THAT LEADS TO TO TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT,
WHAT WE WANTED TO DO HAVE THE
PEERS BE PAID TOTRY TO ENCOURAGE
THEM TO BE LESS RISKY, SO THEY
WOULD BE PAID FEWER BALLOONS
THEY POPPED.
SO WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET, SO
THAT WOULD BE ONE QUESTION.
THE SECOND ONE, WE WANTED TO
LOOK AT OLDER ADOLESCENTS AND
KIND OF PRE-ADOLESCENTS AND HAVE
THE PARENTS BE THE ONE WHO ARE
GIVING THE FEEDBACK WITH THE
HYPOTHESIS THAT THE PARENTS CAN
GET THE YOUNGER KIDS TO BE LESS
RISKY AN BASICALLY THE OLDER
KIDS WILL JUST SAY SCREW YOU AND
BE TWICE AS RISKY, SO THAT WOULD
BE, YEAH, I THINK WE CAN DO SOME
REALLY INTERESTING MANIPULATIONS
WITH THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]