The unsuitability of global arousal as an explanatory construct has been documented for more than a third of a century (Neiss, 1988a). Anderson's (1990) critique attempted to justify continued use of the arousal construct, principally by citing her group's theorizing and research. This reply counters Anderson's argument that cognitive performance and the effects of drugs are best conceptualized in terms of arousal by analyzing this research program. It is proposed that the theorizing presented by Anderson ignores affect by separating mind and body
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rob Neiss (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: