Effects of Affiliation and Power on Hemispheric Visual Stimuli Processing - Research Paper Example

Effects of Affiliation and Power on Hemispheric Visual Stimuli Processing Abstract Quirin, Gruber and Dusing (nd), investigating the relationship between the symmetry of the frontal alpha and the differences in the affiliation motives, found that the right frontal activities had a significant impact on the affiliation motive. Further, Quirin, Meyer, Haise and Kustermann (nd), investigating the power and affiliation motive neural correlates by employing functional magnetic resonance imaging found that only affiliation motive had an impact on the activities in the pallidum. Kuhl and Kazen (2008) further theorize that power arousal triggers the superiority of the left hemisphere while affiliation triggers the superiority of the right hemisphere. This paper presents question on whether Kuhl and Kazen view would be consistent for the situational cases. Introduction Maslow created a theory of needs in the early 1940s. This theory identified the basic needs that persons have, in order of their significance, the physiological needs; needs of safety; and the needs for belonging, self-actualization and self-esteem. Later in 1960s, McClelland identified three motivators that we all have in his piece of work. According to him, these motivators are learned. McClelland alludes that, regardless of our culture, gender, or age, we all have three driving motivation, and one of these is always our dominant motivating factor. This dominant motivator is largely dependent on one’s life experiences and culture. The three driving motivators are affiliation, power and achievement. Individuals will have different personal characteristics depending on the dominant motivator they have (McClelland et al., 1989). Much of the pleasures and behavior associated with relationships and interaction derive from two social motives for power and affiliation (Heckhausen et al., 1991). Whereas the power motive refers to the tendency of influencing others or getting control over them (Verof, 1957), the affiliation motive is the tendency towards maintaining, establishing, and restoring a right relationship with other persons (Atkinson, & Veroff, 1954). Studies on social relationships have been oriented to affiliation and intimacy more than to power motives (Van Lange,2003), which thus applies to the investigations of hemispheric mechanisms associated with perception and social relationships (Coan, 2010). Moreover, the level to which persons tent to establish and maintain hierarchial and vertical relationships of power strongly shape the quality and form of social relationships as well ( Galinsky & van Dijk 2008) and could have opposed brain strivings and correlations for affiliative relationships. Affiliation motives Individuals who have high affiliation motives would always perceive situations and people that they are attached to with positive reciprocity. They are likely to treat them with sympathy, trust, security and warmth (McGilchrist, 2009). Research has established that people with high affiliation motive levels exhibit substantial sensitivity to faces, write letters often, are popular, succeed in competition and are reluctant about making overall decisions, fearing it may compromise cohesion (Bourne, 2008). Affiliation motives have been further linked to endocrinal processes, entailing the stimulation and production of hormones such as progesterone, and oxytocin. In the contrary, power motives have been particularly associated with increase secretion of the testosterone hormones (Schore, 2001). These findings have been successful ascertained by the thematic apperception tests. Considering that motives that are implicitly measured provide appropriate predictions for the spontaneous behaviors, assessments based on implicit behavior can also predict the physiological processes (Davidson, R. J. (2003) Various researches have explored the relationship between hemispheric asymmetries pertaining to frontal alpha and affective motivational traits. Some of the previous researches have inclined on results derived from electroencephalography, which has shade light on the differences that exist between behavioral activation, as well as motivational direction. A study by Quirin, Gruber and Dusing (2004) sought to investigate the relationship between the symmetry of the frontal alpha and the differences in the affiliation motives, an investigation that was extended to study the source of the brain. The study found that the right frontal activities had a significant impact on the affiliation motive (Isen, & Nowicki,1987). Quirin, Gruber and Dusing acknowledge the need to take into account the need by which to drive motivational direction. For instance, motivation can be driven by affiliation or by power, all of which are crucial driving forces among mammals, including human beings. A distinction between direction of motivation and needs are particularly crucial, and these may account for the discrepancies in various studies that focused on studying the relationship between frontal asymmetry and motivational traits. This prompts the investigation the correlation between affiliation motive and frontal asymmetry based on the EEG alpha frequency (Schore, 2001). They establish that the right frontal activity is associated with affiliation motive (Beeman, Friedman, Grafman, & Lindsay, 1994). Motivation and Hemisphere Asymmetry Most researches that have explored the relationship between motivation and hemisphere asymmetry have focused on motivation direction (Watson, 2004). There are two types of motivational direction. These are approach and avoidance motivation. Approach motivation is driven by the anticipation of rewards, making a person to be attracted to people or pleasant stimuli. Avoidance motivation is driven punishment. This makes people to turn away from unpleasant stimuli and persons (Spinella, 2002). Approach motivation is associated with low left alpha power, generating the assumption that the two are related. However, another model suggests that behavioral activation and deactivation, as opposed to motivational direction, play a crucial role, as far as lateralization is concerned. Here, behavior activation action, such as flight that is based on fear, was associated with left hemisphere (Anderson & Keltner, 2002). Affiliation Motive and Hemisphere Asymmetry Empirical evidence pertaining to the relationship between neuroendocrine processes and behaviors that are triggered spontaneously exists, albeit limited. Various researches reveal that the right hemispheres have a significant impact on activities pertaining to the affiliation motive. For instance, motive associated to empathy and sympathy relate with the right posterior cortex (Guinote & Wilkinson, 2009). Additionally, various studies have revealed the relationship between PFC and other mental states, as well as group cooperation (Springer & Deutsch, 1997). Patients found to have lesions, especially the right PFC, were found to be susceptible to impaired attribution mental states (Okubo, 2010), as well as socialization. This implies that the relationship between this region and processes pertaining to affiliation are indisputable. Kuhn and Kazan (2008) found out that the attentional bias exists towards pictures or words that are associated to the area of affiliation. This was more pronounced if presented to the left visual systems than to the right visual system. The reverse was the case when the words were presented to the left visual field (MacLeod Mathews & Tata, 1986). These effects are not related to avoidance and approach content, as well as motives that are related to stimuli. This implies that power and affiliation may not be depended upon motivational direction (Levy & Trevarthen, 1996). Power and Affiliation It is not uncommon to find people behave in line with the requirement of the authority. Power, signified authorities, can alter the behavior of people, making them to behave in the same way or differently. These imply that power has a substantial impact on cognition. Indeed, various aspects of human behavior pertaining to relationships and social interactions are derivatives of the two social motives, which touch on affiliation and power (Harmon & Sigelman, 2001). Affiliation motive can be defined as the ability of a person to establish, maintain and restore positive relations with other people. On the other hand, power motive is the ability of tendency for a person to create allowance for other people to influence or control them (Kuhl, & Kazen, 2008). Such, this can be further described as a sense of submissiveness. Most researches have focused on the relationship between intimacy and affiliation while overlooking the position of power-related issues (Borod, et al 1998). Focusing on the relationship between power and affiliation would also entail conducting an investigation on the brain functionality, in relation to social interactions (Gainotti, 2005). It is worth noting that the degrees that individuals establish and perceive hierarchical relationships is often a vital component, as far as the prediction on the nature of relationship is concerned (Beeman & Bowden 2000). Additionally, this could possess different correlates of brain, compared to those relationships based on intimate or affiliation relationships (Baker, 1999). Despite the fact that the differences between power and affiliation motives are well documented, researches pertaining to the neural correlates of power affiliation (Rofe, 1994). A study by Quirin, Meyer, Haise and Kustermann (2005) sought to investigate the correlates of neural motivation. They employed functional magnetic resonance imaging to ascertain the nature and type of neural structures that affect the relationship between power and motivation. The study found that the affiliation motive had an impact on the activities in the pallidum as participants watched the love clips ( McGilchrist, 2009). A focus on Current Research As reviewed, Quirin, Gruber and Dusing (2004), investigating the relationship between the symmetry of the frontal alpha and the differences in the affiliation motives, found that the right frontal activities had a significant impact on the affiliation motive. Further, Quirin, Meyer, Haise and Kustermann (2005), investigating the correlates of neural motivation by employing functional magnetic resonance imaging found that the affiliation motive had an impact on the activities in the pallidum as participants watched the love clips. Kuhl and Kazen (2008) further theorize that power arousal triggers the superiority of the left hemisphere while affiliation triggers the superiority of the right hemisphere. The crucial question is whether this condition holds for any type of social state. It is conventional that a heart should process rapidly following an affiliation arousal (Levy & Trevarthen 1996). On the other hand, in the situations of power arousal, it is expectable that the fist should be processed at a rapid rate (Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). Nonetheless, here, the priming concepts cannot be overlooked. Priming refers to the effects triggered by an implicit memory following the exposure to the stimuli. These can assume perceptual, conceptual or semantic stimuli repetition fashion (Godefroy & Rousseaux, 1996). Even so, perhaps of great interest is the mechanism underlying semantic and associative priming. In semantic priming, the target and the prime fall in the same category, sharing various commonalities. Semantic priming functions based upon neural networks that are spread. In associative priming, the focus is directed onto words that have the high probability of accompanying the prime (Hellige, 1991). How does the case present itself based on the information of these concepts? Does Kuhl and Kazen (2008) finding limit itself to situational states? Is the situation replicable for other type of settings of which can be ascertained based on the RT instruments? Furthermore, what would happen if affiliation and power symbols were introduced directly? These are crucial questions that that may need to unravel. References Anderson, C., & Keltner, D. (2002). The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of social bonds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 21-22. Atkinson, K. & Veroff, L. (1954). Laterality of expression in portraiture: Putting your best cheek forward. Proceedings of the Royal Society (Section B), 266, 1517-1522. Baker, C. (1999). Defining and measuring Affiliation Motivation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 97-99. Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1213-1223. Baumann, N., Kuhl, J., & Kazen, M. (2005). Hemispheric activation and self-infiltration: Testing a neuropsychological model of internalization. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 135-163. Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1231-1241. Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M. B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26-45. Borod, J., Cicero, B., Obler, L.,Welkowitz, J., Erhan, H., Santschi, C., et al. (1998). Right hemisphere emotional perception: Evidence across multiple channels. Neuropsychology, 12, 446-458. Bourne, V. J. (2008). Examining the relationship between degree of handedness and degree of cerebral lateralisation for processing facial emotion. Neuropsychology, 22, 350-356. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 6, 435-440. Coan, H. (2010). Attentional bias for threatening facial expressions in anxiety: Manipulation of stimulus duration. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 737-753. . Davidson, R. J. (2003). Affective neuroscience and psychophysiology: Toward a synthesis. Psychophysiology, 40, 655-665. Gainotti, G. (2005). Emotions, unconscious processes, and the right hemisphere. Neuro-Psychoanalysis, 7, 71-81. Galinsky, K.& van Dijk, M. (2008). Affiliation motivation in everyday experience: A theoretical comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 513-522. Godefroy, O., & Rousseaux, M. (1996). Divided and focussed attention in patients with lesions to the prefrontal cortex. Brain & Cognition, 30, 155-174. Guinote ,A & Wilkinson, D.(2009). Apowerful Vision: Power Affects Visual Search Behavior. Retrived from htto://kar.kent.ac.uk Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-frontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797-803. Heckhausen,S. & Hellige, J. B. (1991). Cerebral laterality and metacontrol. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Cerebral laterality: Theory and research: The Toledo Symposium. Hellige, J., Bloch, M., Cowin, E., Eng, T., Eviatar, Z., & Sergent, V. (1994). Individual variation in hemispheric asymmetry: Multitask study of effects related to handedness and sex. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 235-235. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131. Kuhl, J., & Kazen, M. (2008). Motivation, affect, and hemispheric asymmetry: Power versus affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 456-469. Levy, J., & Trevarthen, C. (1996). Metacontrol of hemispheric function in human split-brain patients. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 299-312. MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15-20. McGilchrist, I. (2009). The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the Western world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Okubo, M. (2010). Right movies on the right seat: Laterality and seat choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 42, 90-99. Quirin, P, Meyer,C, Haise, K, & Kustermann, J. (2005). Independence versus integration of right and left hemisphere processing: Effects of handedness. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: Mechanisms and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Quirin,P, Gruber, G & Dusing,Y, (2004). Neuropsychological aspects of facial asymmetry during emotional expression: A review of the normal adult literature. Neuropsychology Review, 7, 41-60. Rofe, Y. (1994). Stress and affiliation: A utility theory. Psychological Review, 91, 235-250 Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 7-66.. Spinella, M. (2002). A relationship between smell identification and empathy. International Journal of Neuroscience, 112, 605-612. Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1997). Left brain, right brain. San Francisco: Freeman. Van Lange,(2003). Emotion and intuition: Effects of positive and negative mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14, 416-421. Verof,T,( 1957).Cognitive and neuropsychological response asymmetries for adults on the left-right seating axis. International Journal of Neuroscience, 72, 59-78. Watson, D., (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality 38:4,319-350. Read More