We respond to the commentaries of Critchley and Nagai, Mendes, Norman, Sabatinelli, and Richter. We agree that a theory needs to make predictions and we elaborate on the predictions we made so far. We do not agree that arousal has to have a precise definition in order to present theory about it; however, we do provide concrete answers to questions raised about multiple arousal theory.
BagbyR. M.ParkerJ. D. A.TaylorG. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23–32.
2.
BoucseinW. (2011). Electrodermal activity. Techniques in psychophysiology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
3.
CritchleyH. D.NagaiY. (2016). Comment: What does left–right autonomic asymmetry signify?Emotion Review, 8(1): pp. 76–77.
4.
MendesW. B. (2016). Comment: Looking for affective meaning in “multiple arousal” theory: A comment to Picard, Fedor, and Ayzenberg. Emotion Review, 8(1): pp. 77–79.
5.
NormanG. J. (2015). Comment: Emotional and autonomic arousal constructs in psychophysiological research: Where do we go from here?Emotion Review, 8(1): pp. 79–80.
6.
PicardR. W.FedporS.AyzenbergY. (2016). Multiple arousal theory and daily-life electrodermal activity asimmetry. Emotion Review, 8(1): pp. 62–75.
7.
RichterM. (2015). Comment: Where is the Theory? A Critical Comment on Multiple Arousal Theory. Emotion Review, 8(1): pp. 82–83.
8.
SabatinelliD. (2016). Comment: The methodological and conceptual utility of differentiating emotional arousal. Emotion Review, 8(1), pp. 81–82.
