{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013805004314063849, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003451251078515962, 'mean_word_length': 5.783625730994152, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Neuroticism and responsiveness to error feedback: adaptive self-regulation versus affective reactivity.

Responsiveness to negative feedback has been seen as functional by those who emphasize the value of reflecting on such feedback in self-regulating problematic behaviors. On the other hand, the very same responsiveness has been viewed as dysfunctional by its link to punishment sensitivity and reactivity. The present 4 studies, involving 203 undergraduate participants, sought to reconcile such discrepant views in the context of the trait of neuroticism. In cognitive tasks, individuals were given error feedback when they made mistakes. It was found that greater tendencies to slow down following error feedback were associated with higher levels of accuracy at low levels of neuroticism but lower levels of accuracy at high levels of neuroticism. Individual differences in neuroticism thus appear crucial in understanding whether behavioral alterations following negative feedback reflect proactive versus reactive mechanisms and processes. Implications for understanding the processing basis of neuroticism and adaptive self-regulation are discussed.