PerceDtaul md Motor Skills, 1977, 45, 1099-1103. @ Perceptual and Mocor Skills 1977

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF SUCCESSFUL BIOFEEDBACK TRAINING PETER PARDINE AND ANTHONY NAPOLI New York Zristkivte of Technology Summary.-This study was designed to examine the role of personality in effectiveness of biofeedback training. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered to 37 subjects assigned to Accurate Information and Misinformation groups in a heart-rate conditioning experiment. The treatment effect was not significant, but personality variables of exhibition, succorance, deference, and aggression were reliable predictors of success in biofeedback training. Post hoc analyses for treatment X high-low score classification on the Edwards variables indicated that accurately informed subjects high in succorance or exhibition demonstrated significantly greater heart-rate reduction than subjects given other treatment.

During the past decade much of the research on heart-rate conditioning has dealt with the validity of response measurement in experiments on biofeedback (see Blanchard & Young, 1973). Only recently have investigators begun to examine those organismic variables which may relate to the ability to control heart rate (Ray, 1974; Ray & Lamb, 1974). Although these studies have employed only one measure of personality, the Rotter Locus of Control measure (1966), findings have suggested an important issue concerning the efficacy of biofeedback training. In these studies subjects have been instructed to increase and decrease heart rate under conditions of heart-rate feedback and no heart-rate feedback. These investigators have found that regardless of feedback presentation, subjects with internal locus of control were better able to increase their heart rates than were externals; and externals were better able to decrease than were internals. While these findings indicate the interdependence of personality and physiological systems in the biofeedback setting, they have raised an interesting question. To what extent are personality variables important determinants of heartrate control in biofeedback training? Do such variables alone predict heart-rate control, or do they combine in some way with the particular aspects of biofeedback training to promote successful heart-rate control? This question was addressed in the present study using additional personality measures.

METHOD Szcbjects

Subjects were 37 undergraduate males enrolled in introductory psychology classes at New York Institute of Technology, a private 4-yr. college on Long Island. Their mean age was 19.25 yr. None of the subjects had prior exposure to biofeedback techniques. Twenty-three of these subjects were assigned to the

1100

P. PARDINE & A. NAPOLI

Accurate Information treatment group, and 14 were assigned to the Misinformation treatment group.

A pparatzks Using a Narco Physiograph 4 assembly (with Biotachometer Model 7302), accurate feedback was administered by a continuous auditory signal controlled by a Narco Limit Indicator (Model LI 55). The pitch of this auditory signal varied directly with heart-rate change. Subjects receiving misinformation heard a tape recording of a successful biofeedback session in which the over-all decrease in heart rate was 6 bpm. Prior to the feedback session, all subjects were administered the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule ( 1359). Procedwre Each subject was seated comfortably in a reclining chair in an air-conditioned, sound-attenuated room. Electrodes were placed on the right and left sides of the rib cage; a ground electrode was placed on the sternum. This electrode placement permitted continuous monitoring of heart rate and respiration throughout the session. Subjects were instructed to avoid erratic breathing and M y movements during the session. A 6-min. pretest period provided baseline heart-rate measurement. After pretest all subjects were informed that they would receive a tone (through headphones) and that the tone would indicate their level of heart-rate activity. Their task was to lower the tone throughout the training period. Feedback training lasted 30 min. RESULTS Results in the present study were based on changes in heart rate from the 6 min. of pretest to the last 6 min. of feedback training. For both pretest and training periods, heart-rate data were reduced using a peak-rate technique (Opton, Rankin, & Lazarus, 1966) for each 30 sec. of the physiographic record. For pretest and training, heart-rate scores reflected the averages of the 12 fastest beats during the period. The change in heart rate was determined by the subtraction of the training score from the pretest score. A t test was performed on mean change in heart rate for treatment grc4ups.l The result was not significant; t = .509, df = 35. The mean change in heart rate for the accurately informed subjects was a decrease of 2.50 bpm; the mean change for misinformed subjects was a decrease of 1.84 bpm. This non-significant result indicates that accurate feedback was not an effective variable during the one session of training in the present study. However, the findings relating heart-rate change to personality variables did indicate that the efficacy of feedback training may depend, to solme extent, on the presence or absence of specific personality traits. Treatment groups were statistically equivalent in heart-rate activity during the pretest period.

1101

PERSONALITY I N SUCCESSFUL BIOFEEDBACK

Product-moment correlations between heart-rate change and variables on the Edwards Schedule are reported in Table 1. For the Accurate Information group only were personality variables predictive of heat-rate reduction. Based on the correlation coefficients reprted in the table, a higher degree of exhibition ( r = .48,9 .05) or succorance ( r = .49, p < .05) was predictive of greater biofeedback success, while less deference ( r = -.49, p < .05) or aggression ( Y = -.42, p < .05) was predictive of greater biofeedback success. Further supplementary analyses showed that succorance and exhibition predicted greater success in heart-rate reduction for accurately informed subjects than for misinformed subjects.

Personality correlates of successful biofeedback training.

PerceDtaul md Motor Skills, 1977, 45, 1099-1103. @ Perceptual and Mocor Skills 1977 PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF SUCCESSFUL BIOFEEDBACK TRAINING PETER P...
289KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views