Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wright, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kirby, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wright, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kirby, L. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Cardiovascular Correlates of Challenge and Threat Appraisals: A Critical Examination of the Biopsychosocial Analysis

Rex A. Wright

Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Leslie D. Kirby

Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University

In this article we examine critically the biopsychosocial (BPS) challenge versus threat analysis proposed by Blascovich and his coworkers. We conclude that the BPS analysis should be viewed with considerable caution. We conclude this in part because the analysis is associated with notable problems, including (a) its conception of demand, (b) its definitions of goal-relevant and evaluative situations, (c) its assertion regarding primary and secondary appraisal determinants of challenge and threat, and (d) its cardiovascular (CV) predictions. We conclude this as well because BPS analysis studies have not made a compelling empirical case. BPS analysis studies are unpersuasive because (a) their CV results are only partially consistent with BPS analysis predictions, (b) they have compared CV responses of groups bearing an uncertain relationship to the primary and secondary appraisal criteria specified for the production of challenge and threat effects, (c) they have not compared challenge and threat appraisals between challenge and threat groups, and (d) they provided data that are incomplete. Theoretical modifications and additional research could make a better case for the BPS view.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 216-233 (2003)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0703_02
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?