Personality and Social Psychology Review

 

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.
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blascovich, J.
Right arrow Articles by Seery, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blascovich, J.
Right arrow Articles by Seery, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 234-243 (2003)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0703_03

The Robust Nature of the Biopsychosocial Model Challenge and Threat: A Reply to Wright and Kirby

Jim Blascovich

Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Wendy Berry Mendes

Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco

Joe Tomaka

Department of Health Sciences, University of Texas, El Paso

Kristen Salomon

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida

Mark Seery

Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara

This article responds to Wright and Kirby's (this issue) critique of our biopsychosocial (BPS) analysis of challenge and threat motivation. We counter their arguments by reviewing the current state of our theory as well as supporting data, then turn to their specific criticisms. We believe that Wright and Kirby failed to accurately represent the corpus of our work, including both our theoretical model and its supporting data. They critiqued our model from a contextual, rational-economic perspective that ignores the complexity and subjectivity of person-person and person-environmental interactions as well as nonconscious influences. Finally, they provided criticisms regarding possible underspecificity of antecedent components of our model that do not so much indicate theoretical flaws as provide important and interesting questions for future research. We conclude by affirming that our BPS model of challenge and threat is an evolving, generative theory directed toward understanding the complexity of personality and social psychological factors underlying challenge and threat states.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
A. Martens, J. Greenberg, and J. J. B. Allen
Self-Esteem and Autonomic Physiology: Parallels Between Self-Esteem and Cardiac Vagal Tone as Buffers of Threat
Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2008; 12(4): 370 - 389.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
International Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentHome page
R. Seginer
Future orientation in times of threat and challenge: How resilient adolescents construct their future
International Journal of Behavioral Development, July 1, 2008; 32(4): 272 - 282.
[Abstract] [PDF]