A recent study purporting to test directly the optimal-arousal hypothesis is reviewed. Several methodological errors are pointed out, and questions are raised concerning the author's interpretation of the negative results obtained.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DuffeyE.Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1962.
2.
HebbD. O.Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 243–254.
3.
LaceyJ. I.Individual differences in somatic response patterns. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1950, 43, 338–350.
4.
LeubaC.Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal stimulation. Psychol. Rep., 1955, 1, 27–34.
5.
LevineF. M.Relation of stimulus-seeking behavior and arousal level. Psychol. Rep., 1966, 18, 743–746.
6.
LindsleyD. B.Emotion. In StevensS. S. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1951. Pp. 473–516.
7.
SchnoreN. M.Individual patterns of psychological activity as a function of task differences and degree of arousal. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58, 117–128.
8.
SchubertD. S. P.Arousal seeking as a motivation for volunteering: MMPI scores and central-nervous-system-stimulant use as suggestive of a trait. J. proj. Tech. pers. Assess., 1964, 28, 337–340.
9.
SchubertD. S. P.Arousal seeking as a central factor in tobacco smoking among college students. Int. J. soc. Psychiat., 1965, 11, 221–225.
10.
SternbachR. A.Two independent indices of activation. EEC clin. Neurophysiol., 1960, 12, 609–611.
