ample, we defined the state of task engagement in terms of increased concen-
tration, task motivation and energetic arousal. The task engagement re-
sponse may reflect a variety of mechanisms (including direct influence of
neural systems), but evidence especially highlights the role of high-level
cognitions; appraising the situation as challenging, and initiating task-fo-
cused coping. The state concomitants of these processes jointly function to
support the adaptive goal of commitment of effort to the task. These may be
differentiated to some extent as resisting distractions (concentration), mobi-
lizing and directing effort (task motivation), and increasing resource avail-
ability (energetic arousal). However, the close linkages between the different
state responses suggest that they typically operate as an integrated system.
The exquisite sensitivity of states to feedback from the situation functions to
keep self-regulation attuned to changing environmental contingencies.
Again, multiple mechanisms may contribute to effects of state on intellectual
functioning, depending on task demands and contextual factors. These mech-
anisms include generalized changes in information processing, such as loss of
functional resources, and the person’s appraisal of how application of the in-
tellect may help solve the adaptive problems of a particular social context.
Thus, intellectual functioning should be seen as one aspect of self-regulative
processes. Indeed, the clearest picture of the role of intellectual functioning
may come from analyzing its adaptive relevance, over the life course and in
specific situations. Like practical intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000),
intellectual functioning is adaptive through its specialization to deal with spe-
cific situational challenges and tasks, that is, as a set of contextualized skills.
The functional analysis here provides a broad conceptual framework for un-
derstanding the relationship between traits, states and intellectual perform-
ance. However, more detailed predictive models require a more complete ac-
count of the cognitive architecture and acquired skills supporting performance
of specific tasks, an issue beyond the scope of this chapter.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits.Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition.American Psychologist, 51,
355–365.
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts.Personality and Individual Differences,
11 , 1011–1018.
Arkin, R. M. (1987). Shyness and self-presentation. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.),Self and
identity: Psychosocial perspectives(pp. 187–195). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Beck, A. (1989). Evaluation anxieties. In C. Lindemann (Ed.),Handbook of phobia therapy:
Rapid symptom relief in anxiety disorders(pp. 89–112). Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson.
Belzer, K. D., D’Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2002). Social problem solving and trait
anxiety as predictors of worry in a college student population.Personality & Individual Dif-
ferences, 33, 573–585.
- TRAITS, STATES, AND INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING 171