Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anxiety | Eysenck | Corr II 119 Fear/Anxiety/study/reward/punishment/Arousability/Gray/Eysenck/GrayVsEysenck/McNaughton/Corr: Gray’s intellectual starting point is the biological component of Hans Eysenck’s theory of introversion–extraversion and neuroticism–stability. II 120 Eysenck saw introverts and extraverts as differing primarily in general conditionability (whether with reward or punishment as the reinforcer) resulting from arousability (…). In contrast, Gray suggested that they differ, instead, in specific conditionability (…), related to sensitivity to punishment (sometimes he said fear) but not reward. (…) for both theories, the most important consequence of introversion for psychiatry is high conditioning of fear. Both theories presumed that these introversion-/extraversion-based differences in socialization would lead to psychiatric disorder when combined with high levels of neuroticism, which acts like an amplification factor. [However,] the two theories differ in their predictions about conditioning via reward. Gray’s key modification (…) is to attribute variations in fear conditioning to differing sensitivities to punishment, whereas Eysenck attributes it to variations in general arousability (in the ascending reticular activating system, ARAS) and so, as a consequence, conditionability in general. Gray located punishment sensitivity (in the sense of susceptibility to fear; see Gray, 1970a, p. 255(1)) in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the septo-hippocampal system (SHS) (…). He connected PFC, SHS and ARAS in a feedback loop, controlled by ‘theta’ rhythm, and impaired by extraverting (anti-anxiety) drugs such as amylobarbitone. High arousal could generate punishment (with effects similar to those proposed by Eysenck). Conversely, high punishment sensitivity would generate high arousal in punishing situations (…) due to interaction of PFC + SHS with ARAS. II 123 Susceptibility to fear (although not always due to conditioning (…)) fitted well with a number of facts (p. 255)(1). We can easily see internalizing disorders (‘dysthymias’, e.g., phobia, anxiety and obsession) as excessive fear of one form or another. (…) trait-anxious people (neurotic introverts) condition better only if there is threat. At the other end of the scale, we can view externalizing disorders (e.g., psychopathy) as insufficient sensitivity to punishment. II 126 Reward/Punishment/Arousability/Sensitivity/Gray/McNaughton/Corr: According to Gray, arousability is a general concept that should apply to both reward and punishment. To explain activity in a ‘system whose chief function appears to be that of inhibiting maladaptive behaviour’ (p. 260)(1), general arousability needs explanation. For Gray, if we invert the causal order, it seems perfectly reasonable that higher susceptibility to the threats that abound in everyday life would lead to higher levels of arousal effects. For Gray, arousal, however it is produced, serves to invigorate behaviour (…), unless it is so intense it becomes punishing. This can give rise to paradoxical effects: for example, mild punishment will induce arousal and may invigorate reward-mediated reactions – so long as the punishment-inducing effects are smaller than the reward-inducing effects. II 127 Neuroticism/Anxiety: Taking an explicitly two-process learning approach, Gray first recasts the combination of neuroticism with introversion. If reward and punishment sensitivities are distinct, and we employ only two factors for our explanations, then high neuroticism/emotionality as normally measured must represent a combination of high reward and high punishment sensitivity. Gray’s initial equation of introversion with punishment sensitivity means that the neurotic introvert will be particularly sensitive to punishment. II 129 VsGray: The paper’s complexity may seem a trivial issue [but] even half a century later, readers (…) struggle with it. The biggest problem is that the theory spans multiple disciplines – with each integral to the whole. Gray’s detailed exposition also has some specific problems that we discuss here. At the theoretical level, his use of the terms ‘punishment’ and ‘fear’ were ambiguous: blurring key points when he shifted between one and the other conceptually. At the measurement level, while proposing a rotation of Eysenck’s axes, he did not tell us how to assess his proposed reward and punishment sensitivities (…). [Moreover] his paper focused on ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ in the context of conditioning. He, therefore, did not discuss the third case of escape/withdrawal in any detail. However, it is via fight/flight that he included obsessive–compulsive disorder, with its compulsive rituals and obsessive rumination, within the dysthymic disorders. >Terminology/Gray, >Fear/Eysenck. 1. Gray, J. A. (1970a). The psychophysiological basis of introversion–extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249–266. McNaughton, Neil and Corr, John Philip: “Sensitivity to Punishment and Reward Revisiting Gray (1970)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 115-136. |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Neuroticism | Biological Theories | Corr I 192 Neuroticism/Biological Theories: Neuroticism seems to correspond well to the biological system governing withdrawal behaviour, anxiety and the detection of threat (e.g., Gray 1987(1); Watson, Wiese, Vaidya and Tellegen 1999(2); but see Smillie, Pickering and Jackson 2006(3), for an updated treatment of Gray’s theory (VsGray)). >Personality traits, >Fear, >Anxiety. 1. Gray, J. A. 1987. The psychobiology of fear and stress. Cambridge University Press 2. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J. and Tellegen, A. 1999. The two general activation systems of affect: structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 820–38 3. Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D. and Jackson, C. J. 2006. The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: implications for personality measurement, Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 320–35 M. Brent Donnellan and Richard W. Robins, “The development of personality across the lifespan”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Terminology | Corr | Corr I 360 Terminology/Corr: Gray and McNaughton (2000)(1): Revised RST (Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory): FFFS/CorrVsGray: The fight–flight–freeze system (FFFS) is now responsible for mediating reactions to all aversive stimuli, conditioned and unconditioned. It updates the FFS to include ‚freezing’. In addition, the theory proposes a hierarchical array of neural modules, each responsible for a specific defensive behaviour (e.g., avoidance and freezing). The FFFS mediates the emotion of >fear, not >anxiety. BAS: The behavioural approach system (BAS) mediates reactions to all appetitive stimuli, conditioned and unconditioned (…). It interfaces with dedicated consummatory systems (e.g., eating and drinking) which are responsible for the final consumption of unconditioned stimuli (e.g., food); the BAS is involved in the incentive processes moving the animals up the temporo-spatial gradient to the final biological reinforcer. It is responsible for Corr I 361 generating the emotion of ‘anticipatory pleasure’, and hope itself. The associated personality factor consists of optimism, reward-orientation and (especially in very high BAS-active individuals) impulsiveness (…). BIS: The Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) is the most changed system in revised RST. It is responsible, not, as in the 1982 version, for mediating reactions to conditioned aversive stimuli and the special class of innate fear stimuli, but rather for the resolution of goal conflict in general (e.g., between BAS-approach and FFFS-avoidance, as in foraging situations, but it is also involved in BAS-BAS and FFFS-FFFS conflicts; see Corr 2008a)(2). In typical animal learning situations, BIS outputs have evolved to permit an animal to enter a dangerous situation (i.e., leading to cautious ‘risk assessment’ behaviour) or to withhold entrance (i.e., passive avoidance). The BIS is involved in the processes that finally generate the emotion of anxiety, and entails the inhibition of prepotent conflicting behaviours, the engagement of risk assessment processes, and the scanning of memory and the environment to help resolve concurrent goal conflict, which is experienced subjectively as worry (…). Cf. >Terminology/Gray. 1. Gray, J. A. and McNaughton, N. 2000. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University Press 2. Corr, P. J. 2008a. Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction, in P. J. Corr (ed). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality, pp. 1–43. Cambridge University Press Philip J. Corr, „ The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.