Skip to main content

First Study Published Confirming Key Propositions of TMT

Two Minds Theory suggests that Intuitive-level variables have a strong effect on people’s everyday experiences and behaviors (and in fact, that only the Intuitive system is involved in producing behavior). Because the Intuitive system operates outside of conscious awareness, TMT also suggests that people aren’t aware of all the things that affect their immediate experiences and behaviors.

We tested these key propositions in a study just published in the January/February issue of the Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, in which we used daily surveys and ambulatory sensor measures (Fitbit Alta HR devices) to predict everyday ups and downs in the experience of fatigue among people living with HIV. Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms reported by people with HIV, and it can seriously impair people’s ability to accomplish everyday tasks. We asked people to complete a validated short survey on fatigue every day on their smartphones, at random times. The surveys confirmed that people had more fatigue than would usually be seen in healthy adults, even though their HIV was under control with effective treatment. Most people’s fatigue also went up and down quite a bit over the 30 days for which we monitored them.

In relation to TMT’s first prediction, that everyday experiences come out of the Intuitive system, we found that daily fatigue was significantly related to physical activity, to sleep, and to stress. The stress relationship was seen on daily surveys, which are close to everyday experience but might still be measuring the Narrative rather than the Intuitive system. But we were particularly excited to also see a relationship between subjective fatigue and stress when we measured stress with a physiological metric called heart rate variability (HRV). Low HRV suggests an unhealthy stress response, usually because people have trouble recovering from stressful situations: Their heart rate stays elevated (so it shows less change, or variability) long after the initial stressor is gone. On the daily surveys, fatigue was particularly related to avoidant coping (not dealing with a stressor head-on), and with other chronic stressors like lack of control over one’s life, lack of social support, and the experience of stigma due to HIV. These findings mirror a previous study in which we used daily surveys to predict HIV medication adherence, and found in that case that the day-by-day measures were in some cases better predictors than a Narrative-level assessment like “on average, how has your mood been over the past 30 days?”

TMT’s second major prediction is that many of the factors that affect behavior are outside of consciousness. We confirmed this prediction using sensor data, which captured information on activity, sleep, and heart rate without needing to ask our participants directly. All of those non-conscious factors did in fact predict fatigue. But even more importantly, data from qualitative interviews showed that our participants themselves were not aware of these factors or their potential connections to fatigue. Our participants often said they were surprised when they saw their own Fitbit data, because they didn’t know how little they moved or how poorly they slept. The fact that these factors did predict fatigue, without our participants being aware of their own self-care behaviors, is a strong confirmation of TMT’s assertion that many variables affecting our everyday experiences are outside of consciousness.

You can read the full study here, or listen to a podcast in which I talk about the results. Thank you to my collaborator Dr. Mary Beth Makic who was PI on the study, and to our great research team.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Years of Anxiety Taught Me About Balancing Two Minds

  Guest post by Dr. Britt Ritchie, DNP, PMHNP-BC   First, a huge thank-you to Dr. Paul Cook for inviting me to contribute here. Paul was my Division Chair when I worked at the University of Colorado (CU) as an assistant professor. During that time, he saw me at one of my most vulnerable points—grappling with anxiety so intense it almost made me abruptly quit my job. I knew it was social anxiety—the kind of fear marked by an overwhelming sense of being judged, embarrassed, or humiliated in front of others—but knowing the label didn’t make it any easier to manage in the moment. Because of that shared history, it feels especially fitting to write about my experience lecturing during my time at CU through the lens of Paul’s Two Minds Theory. I can still picture the lecture hall—the rows of students, the humming projector, the fluorescent lights that were both too hot and too bright. On paper, I was prepared. I had spent hours rehearsing, editing slides, and reviewing notes. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Self-Determination Theory Through the Lens of Two Minds

  Self-determination theory  (SDT) is a framework for understanding human motivation. It gained a great deal of popularity as a possible explanation for the effects of motivational interviewing  (MI), although MI's primary creator William Miller has said that his understanding of MI is atheoretical . It is certainly the case that MI came about long before SDT was used to explain it. And it's also true that SDT was an established model with its own body of research before it was ever linked to MI. But Stephen Rollnick, Miller's co-author in his most important works on MI, has specifically said that he considers SDT to provide the theoretical explanation for MI's success. Deci and Ryan (2000) propose six "mini-theories" or propositions that together make up SDT: 1. intrinsic motivation  is a strong predictor of behavior, and is related to feelings of competence and autonomy. The intrinsic/extrinsic motivation distinction is an old one in psychology, reflecting ...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Pursuit of Digital Badges

  What's the appeal of digital badges? I used to think that only a crazy person would be motivated to exercise just to move some electrons around on their smartphone screen. My phone would notify me that a new challenge was available each month, and I would routinely ignore it. I felt no pain or consternation about this -- in fact, I never gave it a second thought, or never notice the challenge at all. But for the past few months it seems that I'm among those who increase their activity level just because their iPhone tells them to (my latest badges shown above). Why does this seemingly stupid behavior-change strategy work, and why did it start working for me when it didn't help me before? First, it's important to know that rewards do motivate behavior. In a previous post on behaviorism I provided some background on how this works by training the Intuitive Mind. Two Minds Theory posits that the final stage before a behavior is produced by the Intuitive Mind (after proc...
Post a Comment
Read more