1981
DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679(198110)37:4<698::aid-jclp2270370403>3.0.co;2-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A test of the Broen-Storms theory of cognitive deficit in schizophrenia

Abstract: Broen and Storms have developed a popular behavioristic theory t.0 explain schizophrenic thought disorder. It holds that thought disorder results from schizophrenics' having higher drive levels and lower res onse-strength ceilings than non-schizophrenics. As a result, the strength o r appropriate (usually strong) res onses is rivaled by that of inappropriate, ordinarily-weak responses. TI%, in Broen and Storms' the0 is the cause of disorganized, schizophrenic behavior. We tested several T y otheses derived fro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1986
1986
1987
1987

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
(11 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In spite of studies that support Broen's response disorganization theory (Broen, 1968), several research studies have been unable to demonstrate the predicted arousalinduced schizophrenic performance decrements (Paulman & Meyers-Abell, 1980;Watson, Wold, Anderson, Schulte, & Jacobs, 1981). Tests of the theory typically have been conducted in the context of a stimulus generalization paradigm that permits the associative strengths of both dominant and competing responses to be varied while arousal or drive levels are manipuated by requiring subjects to grip a hand dynamometer at varied percentages of maximum tension strength (e.g., Storms & Acosta, 1974).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In spite of studies that support Broen's response disorganization theory (Broen, 1968), several research studies have been unable to demonstrate the predicted arousalinduced schizophrenic performance decrements (Paulman & Meyers-Abell, 1980;Watson, Wold, Anderson, Schulte, & Jacobs, 1981). Tests of the theory typically have been conducted in the context of a stimulus generalization paradigm that permits the associative strengths of both dominant and competing responses to be varied while arousal or drive levels are manipuated by requiring subjects to grip a hand dynamometer at varied percentages of maximum tension strength (e.g., Storms & Acosta, 1974).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%