Effortful Control and Overcoming Inaction

Another sort of interaction also deserves more attention than it has yet received. As noted earlier (Figure 2), the two-mode reasoning that guided this review suggests that high serotonergic function, and the associated high degree of effortful control, does more than restrain impulses. In theory (and in limited evidence), effortful control can also cause a person who is unmotivated to act to take action. In principle, then, effortful control should have divergent effects, depending on the behavioral context. Effortful control (and related constructs such as executive control, working memory capacity, and serotonergic function) should be involved in countermanding tendencies triggered by inhibitory reactive systems as well as impulsive reactive systems. This idea also deserves closer attention.

Go to:

Conclusion

Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in the role of serotonergic function in depression and elsewhere. The developing literatures use a wide array of research paradigms. The functions of serotonin have been interpreted in terms of diverse constructs, ranging from neuroticism and anxiety-related traits, to cortical control over amygdala activity, to effortful cognitive processes. Review of these literatures suggests that it is useful to conceptualize these various functions in terms of two-mode models of self-regulation. Viewed through this lens, the evidence suggests that serotonergic function can be linked to impulsivity versus constraint in the personality literature, effortful control processes in the cognitive and developmental literatures, and executive control over the amygdala and other subcortical areas in the neurobiological literature. This two-mode picture helps organize what is known about the experience of depression, and it may also be useful in suggesting new areas of investigation.

This article was prompted by evidence that low serotonergic function is a risk factor in depression. Though that evidence is essentially neurobiological in nature, it has implications that are cognitive, behavioral, and phenomenological. Ideas and evidence from several literatures that are psychological in nature appear to foster a deeper understanding of the meaning of this evidence regarding biological vulnerability. This confluence suggests another message as well. Increasingly it is held that biological concepts and methods are key resources to inform psychological theory (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2007; Winkielman, Knutson, Paulus, & Trujillo, 2007). We would hold, however (see also Posner & Rothbart, 2007), that interpretation of neurobiological evidence also benefits from considering the findings through the lens of psychological principles.

Go to:

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14