Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: NEOPHOBIA

Sort By:

Limit search:

NEOPHILIA AND NEOPHOOBIA ARE NOT THE EXTREMES OF COMMON DIMENSION

100%

Pisula W.

Kolokwia Psychologiczne (Psychological Colloquia)

2004

vol. 12

17-25

In 1906 H. Jennings pointed out, that organisms may adopt two basic forms of adaptation to external stimulation: a positive one (approach) and negative (withdrawal). This is a fundamental phenomenon, and may be observed in very primitive organisms, such as amoeba, and complex vertebrates. To fully understand the regulation of behavior it is important to find out, which of these behavioral components is more fundamental or secondary one. The studies on orienting reflexes proved that the initial stage of any response of the organism to stimuli is loaded with the focusing of the senses on the source of the stimulus. The subsequent stages of the reaction may turn to escape or isolation from the stimulus. The analysis of animal exploratory behavior shows that under the controlled stress level and low emotional arousal, the response to novelty is always positive, that is to say, the animals tend to approach the source of novelty. Comparative analysis of the species that live both in isolated and free-living populations shows, that individuals the live free of predation conditions (e.g., cave fishes) present high, disinhibited level of novelty seeking. These three sets of evidence allow to formulate a thesis that neophilia and neophobia do not belong to the same behavioral category. They are not the extremes of a shared dimension either. Novelty seeing is a primary behavioral mechanism, common for all phyletic levels. Neophobia is an expression of an organism's adaptation to the environmental challenges, and may effectively turned off by the elimination of the environmental pressures.

Refine search results

1 Kolokwia Psychologiczne (Psychological Colloquia)

1 Pisula W.

1 2004

Search results

NEOPHILIA AND NEOPHOOBIA ARE NOT THE EXTREMES OF COMMON DIMENSION