Biofeedback and Self-regulation

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 265–278 | Cite as

The effect of activation versus inhibition of feedback on perceived control of EEG activity

  • Miriam D. London
  • Gary E. Schwartz


This study explores a model in which perceived control is affected by multiple sources of feedback at three different stages of the control sequence — person, response, and outcome. Behavior that enhances feedback is termedactivation, while behavior that diminishes feedback is termedinhibition. The study tests the hypothesis that activation at any stage of the sequence leads to greater perceived control than inhibition. Eighty subjects increased or decreased their brain-wave activity (EEG) by making a tone go either on or off, using either an active or a passive strategy. Following 10 60-second trials, subjects rated their perception of control over their EEG activity. The hypothesis that making a tone go on (activation of the outcome) leads to a greater perception of control than making the tone go off (inhibition of the outcome) was confirmed only when subjects decreased their EEG activity. Perceived control was not significantly correlated with actual control, supporting the expectation that they are separately mediated. The results did not support the hypothesis that increasing EEG activity or using an activity strategy would lead to a greater perception of control than decreasing EEG or using a passive strategy. These findings are interpreted as evidence that attention to feedback may be necessary for the predicted bias in perceived control to occur, and that activation and inhibition should be operationalized as the absolute presence versus absence of feedback in testing the hypothesis for the first two stages of control.


Health Psychology Actual Control Multiple Source Activity Strategy Control Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of response alternatives.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108 441–485.Google Scholar
  3. Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.Psychological Bulletin, 80 286–303.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.Psychological Review, 84 191–215.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956).A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, J. G. (1982). Some concepts of perceived control and their relationship to bodily self-control.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 7 341–375.Google Scholar
  7. DeCharms, R. (1968).Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fazio, R. H., Sherman, S. J., & Herr, P. M. (1982). The feature-positive effect in the self-perception process: Does doing nothing matter as much as doing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 404–411.Google Scholar
  9. Gatchel, R. J. (1980). Perceived control: A review and evaluation of therapeutic implications. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.),Advances in environmental psychology, Vol. 2: Applications of personal control. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Glass, C. R., & Levy, L. H. (1982). Perceived psychophysiological control: The effects of power versus powerlessness.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6 91–103.Google Scholar
  11. Hearst, E. (1978). Stimulus relationship and feature selection in learning and behavior. In S. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Hong (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1953). Transmission of information concerning concepts through positive and negative instances.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45 165–182.Google Scholar
  13. Jenkins, H. M., & Sainsbury, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. Mostofsky (Ed.),Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  14. Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of behavior by self-generated stimuli and reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & L. B. Sachs (Eds.),The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 311–328.Google Scholar
  16. London, M. D., & Schwartz, G. E. (1980). The interaction of instruction components with cybernetic feedback effects in the voluntary control of human heart rate.Psychophysiology, 17 437–443.Google Scholar
  17. Malmo, R. B. (1959). Activation: A neuropsychological dimension.Psychological Review, 66 367–386.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence, and theory.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17 287–304.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, J., Wolff, W. T., & Hearst, E. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Learning and Memory, 6 630–650.Google Scholar
  20. Perlmuter, L. C., & Monty, R. A. (1979).Choice and perceived control. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  22. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975).Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it: A complex answer to a simple question.Psychological Bulletin, 90 89–101.Google Scholar
  24. Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972).Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  25. Weisz, J. R., & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the development of perceived control.Human Development, 25 250–281.Google Scholar
  26. Wortman, C. (1975). Some determinant of perceived control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 282–294.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam D. London
    • 1
  • Gary E. Schwartz
    • 1
  1. 1.Yale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations