The Three Arousal Model: Implications of Gray's Two‐Factor Learning Theory for Heart Rate, Electrodermal Activity, and Psychopathy

Fowles, Don C.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1980.tb00117.x

Cited by 1,143 publications

(764 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

685

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reasoning behind this work goes as follows: First, the assumption is made that incentive and threat sensitivities are at least partly distinct from each other (Cloninger, 1987;Davidson, 1998;Depue & Collins, 1999;Fowles, 1980;Gray, 1990Gray, , 1994aGray, , 1994b. There is in fact a great deal of evidence in support of this belief.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Carver¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2009

Psychological Bulletin

1,343

1,148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors review a range of evidence concerning the motivational underpinnings of anger as an affect, with particular reference to the relationship between anger and anxiety or fear. The evidence supports the view that anger relates to an appetitive or approach motivational system, whereas anxiety relates to an aversive or avoidance motivational system. This evidence appears to have 2 implications. One implication concerns the nature of anterior cortical asymmetry effects. The evidence suggests that such asymmetry reflects direction of motivational engagement (approach vs. withdrawal) rather than affective valence. The other implication concerns the idea that affects form a purely positive dimension and a purely negative dimension, which reflect the operation of appetitive and aversive motivational systems, respectively. The evidence reviewed does not support that view. The evidence is, however, consistent with a discrete-emotions view (which does not rely on dimensionality) and with an alternative dimensional approach.Keywords: anger, approach, appetitive system, avoidance, threat system Recent years have seen a surge of interest in emotional experience (e.g., Barrett, Niedenthal, & Winkielman, 2005;Dalgleish & Power, 1999;Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith, 2003;Frijda, 2007; Lane & Nadel, 2000;Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000;Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988;Panksepp, 1998; Rottenberg & Johnson, 2007; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Views of emotion vary considerably, in several respects. As one example, some people view emotions as a set of distinct modular entities, often considered basic emotions (e.g., Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1991;Izard & Ackerman, 2000;Levenson, 1994Levenson, , 1999Panksepp, 1998;Roseman, 1991). Others hold that affects are best understood by reference to underlying dimensions (e.g., Barrett, 2006;Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;Carver & Scheier, 1998;Davidson, 1998;Gray, 1994a;Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1992Russell, 2003;Russell & Carroll, 1999a, 1999bWatson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999;Yik, Russell, & Barrett, 1999). AngerThis article focuses on one specific affect-anger. Specifically, it addresses the relationship of this affect to broad motivational tendencies of approach and avoidance, and it considers implications of that relationship for two areas of thought and research. We begin with a few words about definitions.Sometimes the terms affect, feeling, and emotion are treated as interchangeable (e.g., Isen, 2000); sometimes they are distinguished from each other (e.g., Fredrickson, 2001;. Affect is generally used to imply a hedonic experience, a sense of valence, a subjective sense of positivity or negativity arising from an event. When many use the word emotion, it is with that sense in mind. As Frijda (2000) put it, "For many theorists, the essence of emotion is feeling, and notably 'affect,' here used in the sense of a feeling of pleasure or pain . . . ." (p. 63). As Ortony et al. (1988) put it, emotions are ". . valenced reactions to events, agents, or objects . ." (p. 13). T...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The idea that approach and avoidance systems have partially distinct neural substrates is also quite prominent today, in varying forms (e.g., Cloninger, 1987;Davidson, 1998;Depue & Collins, 1999;Fowles, 1980;Gray, 1994aGray, , 1994bPizzagalli, Sherwood, Henriques, & Davidson, 2005).…”

Section: Background: Approach and Avoidance Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Carver¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2009

Psychological Bulletin

1,343

1,148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first system has withdrawal functions to processing potential threat cues, referred to as BIS (Gray, 1990; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990). A second system supports the engagement of action, referred to as BAS (Fowles, 1980). In clinical conditions, “unbalance effects” between left versus right activity may predict some pathological conditions, as shown in case of anxiety disturbs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resting state and personality component (BIS/BAS) predict the brain activity (EEG and fNIRS measure) in response to emotional cues

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe present study explored the role of resting state and personality component (BIS/BAS measure) on prefrontal cortical responsiveness to emotional cues. Indeed, we supposed that lateralized resting activity (right vs. left) and approach (BAS) versus avoidance (BIS) attitude may explain the successive emotional processing within the prefrontal cortex (PFC) based on the stimulus valence (positive and negative emotional cues).MethodsHemodynamic (functional near‐infrared spectroscopy, fNIRS) and electroencephalographic (EEG) measures were considered. The resting and experimental brain activity were registered when subjects (N = 21) viewed emotional positive versus negative stimuli (International Affective Picture System, IAPS). LIR eeg and LIR nirs (lateralized Index Response) during resting state, and LI eeg and LI nirs during emotional processing were acquired.ResultsA set of regression analyses was applied to the multiple measures. The predictive effect of resting activity and approach/avoidance dichotomy were elucidated. Indeed, more left/right resting activity (for both LIR eeg and LIR nirs) predicted the successive more brain left/right response (LI eeg and LI nirs) to emotional cues. Second, significant effects were revealed as a function of valence (increased right response to negative stimuli; increased left response to positive stimuli) during emotion processing. Third, higher BAS values explained an increased left cortical activity in resting state and in experimental condition for positive cues. In contrast, higher BIS values marked an increased right activity in resting state and in experimental condition in response to negative cues.ConclusionThe significance of trait component for both resting and emotional cue processing was discussed at light of the present results.

show abstract

“…Lykken (1957Lykken ( , 1995 hypothesized that fearlessness was the primary psychological deficit in psychopathy, which in combination with poor rearing environments gave rise to the other symptoms of the disorder. Fowles (1980Fowles ( , 1987 applied the conception of a weak behavioral inhibition system (a hypothetical behavioral-brain system that underlies withdrawal and avoidance behavior) to account for the disinhibited behavior associated with primary psychopathy. Finally, Patrick and colleagues (Levenston, Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 2000;Patrick, 1994Patrick, , 2001, in press; Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 1993) have demonstrated that psychopathic individuals exhibit attenuated defensive response to threatening and fearful stimuli, further implicating low NEM in the etiology of psychopathy.…”

Section: Role Of Nem In Psychopathymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although low anxiety and fearlessness have featured prominently in many clinical descriptions and theories of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941;Fowles, 1980;Karpman, 1948;Lykken, 1995; Patrick, in press), empirical investigations often yield weak, inconsistent, or complex effects, creating confusion regarding the etiological significance of low NEM in psychopathy (cf. Hare, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility.

Hicks¹,

Patrick²

2006

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low negative emotionality (NEM) holds a central place in classic descriptions and seminal theories of psychopathy. However, the empirical link between low NEM and psychopathy is weak. The authors posited that this inconsistency is due to the multifaceted nature of both the NEM and psychopathy constructs and to suppressor effects between facets of psychopathy in relation to NEM criteria. The authors sought to delineate the differential associations between facets of psychopathy and NEM in a large sample of male prisoners using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) and self-report measures assessing different aspects of NEM. Statistical analyses revealed that the interpersonal-affective facet of psychopathy is negatively associated whereas the social deviance facet of psychopathy is positively associated with facets of NEM. The results demonstrate that suppressor effects can reconcile the centrality of NEM in classic descriptions of psychopathy with empirical investigations using the PCL-R. Keywordspsychopathy; negative affect; suppressor effects; Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Explicating the relationship between psychopathy and negative emotionality (NEM; the tendency to experience unpleasant emotional states such as fear, anger, and nervous tension) has been one of the most challenging and conceptually important issues in psychopathy research. Although low anxiety and fearlessness have featured prominently in many clinical descriptions and theories of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941;Fowles, 1980;Karpman, 1948;Lykken, 1995; Patrick, in press), empirical investigations often yield weak, inconsistent, or complex effects, creating confusion regarding the etiological significance of low NEM in psychopathy (cf. Hare, 2003). We contend that these difficulties are due to (a) the multifaceted nature of both the NEM and psychopathy constructs, such that different facets of NEM have differential associations with the facets of psychopathy, and (b) the presence of suppressor effects between the factor scores of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003 in relation to NEM criterion measures.We provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between facets of psychopathy as operationalized by PCL-R factor scores and several facets of NEM. In particular, we provide a systematic examination of the suppressor effects present between the PCL-R factor scores in the prediction of NEM outcomes. We demonstrate that suppression provides the analytic and conceptual framework needed to reconcile the centrality of NEM in clinical descriptions NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript of psychopathy with empirical investigations that use the PCL-R. Specifically, we demonstrate that PCL-R Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) exhibit mutually repulsive effects in the prediction of facets of NEM, wherein F1 is negatively associated with emotional distress (a similar but broader construct than trait anxiety) and fearfulness and is unrelated to anger-hostility, w...

show abstract

The Three Arousal Model: Implications of Gray's Two‐Factor Learning Theory for Heart Rate, Electrodermal Activity, and Psychopathy

Cited by 1,143 publications

References 89 publications

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Resting state and personality component (BIS/BAS) predict the brain activity (EEG and fNIRS measure) in response to emotional cues

Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About