Differential predictability of four dimensions of affect intensity.

Individual differences in affect intensity are typically assessed with the Affect Intensity Measure (AIM). Previous factor analyses suggest that the AIM is comprised of four weakly correlated factors: Positive Affectivity, Negative Reactivity, Negative Intensity and Positive Intensity or Serenity. However, little data exist to show whether its four factors relate to other measures differently enough to preclude use of the total scale score. The present study replicated the four-factor solution and found that subscales derived from the four factors correlated differently with criterion variables that assess personality domains, affective dispositions, and cognitive patterns that are associated with emotional reactions. The results show that use of the total AIM score can obscure relationships between specific features of affect intensity and other variables and suggest that researchers should examine the individual AIM subscales.

Behavioural Genetics in the Postgenomics Era

There is growing evidence that the complexity of higher organisms does not correlate with the ‘complexity’ of the genome (the human genome contains fewer protein coding genes than corn, and many genes are preserved across species). Rather, complexity is associated with the complexity of the pathways and processes whereby the cell utilises the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule, and much else, in the process of phenotype formation. These pro- cesses include the activity of the epigenome, noncoding ribonucleic acids, alternative splicing and post-transla- tional modifications. Not accidentally, all of these pro- cesses appear to be of particular importance for the human brain, the most complex organ in nature. Because these processes can be highly environmentally reactive, they are a key to understanding behavioural plasticity and highlight the importance of the developmental process in explaining behavioural outcomes.