Arousal and the inverted-U hypothesis: A critique of Neiss's "Reconceptualizing arousal."

Abstract

After reviewing the literature linking threat, incentive, and relaxation to motor performance, Neiss (1988) concluded that both the construct of arousal and the hypothesis of an inverted-U relationship between performance and arousal should be abandoned. These arguments were, however, based on research that does not permit clear evaluation of either the construct of arousal or the inverted-U hypothesis. Furthermore, some of Neiss's assumptions are questionable. This article reviews evidence that provides strong support for the inverted-U hypothesis. It is concluded that the concept of arousal is pragmatically useful in organizing a broad range of behavioral data. Neiss (1988) recently presented a valuable review of the empirical literature relating threat, incentive, and relaxation to human motor performance. After considering this evidence, Neiss argued that the concept of arousal should be abandoned, along with the proposition of an inverted-U relationship between arousal and performance. Instead, Neiss advocated the study of discrete psychobiological states. Arguments against a generalized arousal concept were, however, undermined by problems with the type of data reviewed and with the assumptions made regarding the inverted-U hypothesis.Before discussing these issues, several points of agreement between the present position and Neiss 's (1988) position should be noted. First, it is agreed that motivational constructs such as arousal, anxiety, and emotion are multifaceted. Second, it is agreed that specific psychobiological states involve varying combinations of physiological, cognitive, and affective reactions. A corollary of these two statements is that all operationalizations of any of these constructs will include irrelevancies (or in Neiss's terms, side effects). Third, it is agreed that prediction of performance within any particular context will be best if based on detailed information about physiological, cognitive, affective, motivational, and individual difference influences on performance in addition to detailed information about the cognitive and motor demands of the task. That is, there will typically be an increment in predictive validity if refined models are used.The fundamental issue, however, is that of the pragmatic usefulness of general constructs such as arousal. This article addresses limitations of the type of evidence that Neiss (1988) reviewed and difficulties with Neiss's assumptions regarding arousal and the inverted-U hypothesis. Many examples are drawn from the literature on cognitive performance because research in this area has explicitly addressed the relevant con-I thank W. Revelle, T. Rocklin, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on this article.

The effects of chronic sleep reduction on the performance of cognitive tasks sensitive to sleep deprivation

“…Hockey (1970) found a widening of attention allocation by sleep-deprived subjects in a dual task, which he interpreted in terms of the theory that arousal is inversely related to the range of cue utilization (Anderson, 1990;Anderson and Revelle, 1982;Bacon, 1974;Easterbrook, 1959;Eysenck, 1976;Matthews and Margetts, 1991), that is, to the amount of monitoring of peripheral information. Norton (1970) found that sleep-deprived subjects, tested at a card sorting task containing different levels of irrelevant cues, were less able to ignore interfering information than were controls.…”

Impulsivity and time of day: Is rate of change in arousal a function of impulsivity?

“…Despite the difficulties that follow from the concept of a generalized nondirectional energizer, as a hypothetical construct, arousal has pragmatic usefulness in organizing a wide array of empirical phenomena (cf. Anderson, 1990;Claridge, 1987;Gale & Eysenck, 1992;Hebb, 1955;Humphreys* Revelle, 1984).…”

The generality of the emotion effect on magnitude sensitivity

“…However one possible explanation involves the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), which posits an inverted U-shaped relationship between arousal and performance. This empirically relationship has been tested repeated in previous research (Anderson, 1990;Revelle & Loftus, 1992). According to Schachter's congnition-arousal theory of emotion, arousal is one of the two factors for an emotional state (Schachter & Singer, 1962), which leads us to suspect the existence of a similar inverted-U relationship between emotion (arousal) and magnitude sensitivity (performance).…”