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

Prototypes and Willingness: The Theory of Planned Behavior Revisited

  You may recall my blog post from last year on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) , titled "in praise of a failed model." My evaluation of this model was that it accurately describes the Narrative Mind, which does control intentions. But the ultimate goal of the TPB is to predict behavior, and the relationship between intentions and behavior is weak at best -- in fact, it is entirely attributable to the fact that when someone says they don't intend to do something, they probably won't do it. When they say they do intend to do it, their actual results are no better than chance, a result of the intention-behavior gap as described in Two Minds Theory.  The full TPB is shown in this diagram: Cognitive constructs like attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) are Narrative-system phenomena, and they do indeed have relationships with each other and with intentions (which are also products of the Narrative Mind). Perceived behavi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model and Two Minds Theory

Leventhal, Diefenbach, and Leventhal's (1992) "common sense model" of self-regulation. My 2018 paper describing Two Minds Theory (TMT) cites work by my colleague and coauthor Dr. Paula Meek, who conducted studies of patients experiencing the symptom of breathlessness due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). Paula's research used a model by Howard and Elaine Leventhal (with Michael Diefenbach) that was an early iteration of the dual-process approach also used in TMT. She found that people who focused their attention on different aspects of the feeling of breathlessness then in turn had different interpretations of what that symptom meant for them, and that those interpretations changed their perception of the symptom's intensity. This example illustrates a back-and-forth between perceptions and thoughts, which is characteristic of Leventhal's model. Leventhal's dual-process model, sometimes called the "common sense model" of self-reg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Intuitive Decision-Making by People with Diabetes

People with diabetes often find it challenging to maintain their blood sugar levels, in part because diabetes is a complicated disease. When the kidneys don't produce enough insulin fast enough to adjust for changes in digestion or activity, blood sugar can fluctuate rapidly, even over the course of a single day. To manage this, people with diabetes often need to make changes in multiple areas: adopting a low-carbohydrate diet, managing the timing and amount of exercise they get, keeping track of the times when their blood sugar rises and falls, potentially giving themselves a dose of insulin around mealtimes, managing stress, and other preventive measures as well.  But despite all of this complexity, the people who manage their diabetes most successfully are often the least  obsessive about the fine details. When my Dad was first diagnosed with diabetes, he checked his blood sugar often (using finger sticks; continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices weren’t yet a thing). Bu...
Post a Comment
Read more