The Quest for the Inverted U

  • Edward L. Walker

Abstract

The quest for the inverted U, although not without historical precedents, received its major modern impetus with the publication of Daniel E. Berlyne’s Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity (1960). In this and in later volumes Berlyne developed a conception of motivation that was in sharp contrast to the prevailing formulations of psychiatry, psychology, and behavior theory.

Keywords

Sugar Beach Hunt Tria Clarification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aeschbach, S. Ratings of dichords along the continua of complexity-simplicity, consonance-dissonance, and pleasing-displeasing. Honors dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, H. R. The relationship between repetition and organization and the role of organization in psychological complexity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, T. Exploratory behavior in musical intervals as related to measures of consonance and dissonance. Research paper, Amherst College, 1974.Google Scholar
  4. Ayres, T. Psychological and physiological factors in the consonance of musical intervals. Honors dissertation, Amherst College, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlyne, D. E. Psychobiology and aesthetics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. Boykin, A. W., Jr. Verbally expressed preference and complexity judgments as they relate to levels of performance in a problem-solving situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. Boykin, A. W., Jr. Verbally expressed preference and problem-solving proficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1977, 3, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coombs, C. H. Theory of data. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  10. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. Mathematical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970Google Scholar
  11. Day, H. I., & Crawford, G. C. Developmental changes in attitudes toward complexity. Paper read at the meetings of The Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behavior. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle, R. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Abhängigkeit der Lust and Unlust von der Reizstärke beim Geschmacksinn. Archis fuer die Gesamte Psychologie, 1928, 64, 1–36. Cited in Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.Google Scholar
  14. Hebb, D. O. The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949.Google Scholar
  15. Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
  16. Heyduk, R. G. Static and dynamic aspects of rated and exploratory preference for musical compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Heyduk, R. G. Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. Psychology of the arts. Durham: Duke University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. Mcclelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olson, M. H. Complexity and preference and information processing rate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Pfaffman, C. Taste preference and reinforcement. In Tapp, J. T. (Ed.), Reinforcement and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  22. Sales, S. M. Stimulus complexity as a determinant of approach behavior and inspection time in the hooded rat. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Review of Canadian Psychology, 1968, 11, 11–17.Google Scholar
  23. Sinclair, K. Optimal complexity and aesthetic preference. Honors dissertation, University of Michigan, 1967.Google Scholar
  24. Thomas, H. Discrepancy hypotheses: Methodological and theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walker, E. L. Psychological complexity as a basis for a theory of motivation and choice. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  26. Walker, E. L. Reinforcement: “The one ring.” In J. T. Tapp (Ed.), Reinforcement and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. Walker, E. L. Psychological complexity and preference: A Hedgehog theory of behavior. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. Wundt, W. Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Englemann, 1874.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward L. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Pebble BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations