Diverging results with converging operations: Implications for the study of consciousness and cognition.

Converging operations aim to triangulate a construct such as altered states of consciousness or impulsivity, but measures sometimes diverge rather than converge. Three examples are examined: trait and state impulsivity may not correlate; state absorption may not correlate with trait absorption; and trait mindfulness may fail to correlate negatively with trait impulsivity due to ambiguous questionnaire wording. The author argues that the defining measure for impulsivity should be self-reported trait impulsivity, and for an altered state of consciousness it should be the subjective experience report. Three future research directions are proposed: determining which measure defines a construct, clarifying mismatches between measures, and considering demand characteristics that may cloud interpretation.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Converging operations allow one to home in on a construct, be this an altered state of consciousness (ASC), or trait and/or state impulsivity. Unfortunately (or, perhaps fortunately), measures that should provide converging operations for such a construct sometimes present with diverging results. Three cases are considered here: trait impulsivity, which should be positively correlated with state or cognitive impulsivity, but which can also be not correlated; the subjective experience of state absorption, which should be positively correlated with trait absorption, but sometimes is not; and trait mindfulness, which should be negatively correlated with trait impulsivity, but this may be undermined by the semantic ambiguity of a questionnaire item. It is suggested that the defining characteristic of the construct of impulsivity should be the self-report regarding trait impulsivity. Likewise, the defining characteristic of the construct of an ASC should be the report regarding subjective experience. In both cases, predominant weight is placed on the evidence supplied by one's subjective experience and appraisal. Three areas for future research and theoretical consideration are suggested: (1) Given that converging measures are not of equal standing, one should consider which measure is a defining one of the construct under investigation, and which measures are critical for delimiting its extent; (2) when a mismatch appears between measures, it is important to clarify what this means for the construct; and (3) one should consider whether the demand characteristics of a study have clouded the interpretation of the construct under investigation.