Individual Differences in Ability to Control Heart Rate: Personality, Strategy, Physiological, and Other Variables

Abstract

Three experim^ite (total N = 102) are reported which examined the relationship between individual differraices in ability to ccmtrol heart rate (HR) with feedback and differoices in self-reported cognitive strategies, personality variables (locus of control, state and trait anxiety), physiolc^cal variables (respiraticm, somatic »:tivity, basal HR and HR variability, and initial ability to control HR without feedback), and several auxiliary variables (e.g., weight, smoking, gender, exercise, and meditation). Two sets of analyses were perfdHined. In the first set, differences in copiitive strategies and physiological concomitants between HR decrease and HR increase were studied revealing disparate patterns of cognitive strat^es and physiological concomitants for the two directions of HR control. In the second set, the grmip of cognitive, strat^y, personality, physiological, and auxiliary variables was searched to determine if any variables were related to individual differences in ability to decrease or increase HR. C(^nitive strategies, personality, and auxiliary variables were generally unrelated to ability to control HR in either direction. Use of two cognitive strat^es was found to be associated with lack of ability to increase HR, and non-smokers were better able to decrease HR. Strcmg relationships were found for somatic activity and ability to control HR without feedback, botih of which successfully predicted differ^ices in ability to decrease and increase HR witii feedback. Implications of these findings for past and future studies of voluntary control of HR are discussed. addressed methodological and parametric issues which were also well suited to analysis using group data. These issues, comprehensively reviewed by Williamson and Blanchard (1979), included effects of extended training, various feedback parameters, subject motivation, and knowledge of feedback contingencies.Emergence of the current emphasis on individual differences may reflect a growing dissatisfaction with the amount of new knowledge generated from the large number of studies of voluntary control of HR. Regardless, choice of an individuai difference methodology has potential for asking new research questions and generating new kinds of data. The purpose of the present report is to examine the relationship between ability to control HR and a number of potentially relevant variables. Our research question can be stated quite simply: what characteristics differentiate people who differ in ability to control HR? As Williamson and Blanchard's (1979) review indicates, this question has been addressed in terms of several psychological (e.g., locus of control, anxiety) and physiological 91

Smoking's effects on respiratory sinus arrhythmia in adolescent smokers

“…Thus, RSA is often conceptualized as a more general marker of self-regulatory capabilities (e.g., ability to modulate experience of emotion and arousal). Due to its close association with overall health, individual differences in RSA are impacted by various health-related behaviors, particularly smoking (e.g., Levenson & Ditto, 1981; Levin et al, 1992). …”

“…For instance, smokers show an increased or abnormal resting HR, as well as decreased RSA, compared with non-smokers (Levin et al, 1992). Further, when trained in biofeedback, smokers are less able to decrease their HR than non-smokers, in large part due to differences in their physical condition and respiratory health (Levenson & Ditto, 1981). The negative effects of smoking are not limited to current smokers.…”

“Individual” variables and heart rate control via biofeedback: A review

“…The instruments used to test psychological variables in the Stephens et al study were the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory (MPPI) (Dahlstrom & Welsh, 1960) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) (Cattell & Eber, 1957). In the Levenson and Ditto (1981) study, Rotter's Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) and the Speilberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Speilberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) were used. (Psychometric data for both these two instruments have already been presented above.)…”

Psychophysiology and Perceived Locus of Control: Critical Review, Theoretical Speculation, and Research Directions

“…Levenson and Ditto (1981) are not the only investigators who looked for but failed to find a relationship between I-E and cardiac control. Furthermore, although the notion of presenting feedback in so-called heart time (each trial consisted of 120 beats of attempted heart rate control) is novel, individual differences in tonic heart rate could have significant impact on real time on the task.…”

“…Internals seem to be better able to speed heart rate; however, the evidence is less clear with respect to heart rate slowing. For example, several investigators have found that somatic activity successfully predicts differences in ability to decrease and increase heart rate with feedback (e.g., Levenson & Ditto, 1981) and that physiological-response patterning concomitant with the development of heart-rate control may be different earlier in training than it is later in training for both speeding and slowing conditions (Hatch & Gatchel, 1979). However, extrapolation from the EMG literature suggests that investigators may have provided insufficient training.…”