Conservative When Crowded: Social Crowding and Consumer Choice

The authors suggest that the traditional conception of prejudice--as a general attitude or evaluation--can problematically obscure the rich texturing of emotions that people feel toward different groups. Derived from a sociofunctional approach, the authors predicted that groups believed to pose qualitatively distinct threats to in-group resources or processes would evoke qualitatively distinct and functionally relevant emotional reactions. Participants' reactions to a range of social groups provided a data set unique in the scope of emotional reactions and threat beliefs explored. As predicted, different groups elicited different profiles of emotion and threat reactions, and this diversity was often masked by general measures of prejudice and threat. Moreover, threat and emotion profiles were associated with one another in the manner predicted: Specific classes of threat were linked to specific, functionally relevant emotions, and groups similar in the threat profiles they elicited were also similar in the emotion profiles they elicited. 2005 APA, all rights reserved.

We present in this paper a picture of the neural systems controlling defense that updates and simplifies Gray's "Neuropsychology of Anxiety". It is based on two behavioural dimensions: 'defensive distance' as defined by the Blanchards and 'defensive direction'. Defensive direction is a categorical dimension with avoidance of threat corresponding to fear and approach to threat corresponding to anxiety. These two psychological dimensions are mapped to underlying neural dimensions. Defensive distance is mapped to neural level, with the shortest defensive distances involving the lowest neural level (periaqueductal grey) and the largest defensive distances the highest neural level (prefrontal cortex). Defensive direction is mapped to separate parallel streams that run across these levels. A significant departure from prior models is the proposal that both fear and anxiety are represented at all levels. The theory is presented in a simplified form that does not incorporate the interactions that must occur between non-adjacent levels of the system. It also requires expansion to include the dimension of escapability of threat. Our current development and these proposed future extensions do not change the core concepts originally proposed by Gray and, we argue, demonstrate their enduring value.