Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- 31 Introduction
- 32 Approaches to Multilevel Models of Fear: The What, Where, Why, How, and How Much?
- 33 Schaffner on Levels and Selves
- Section 12
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
31 - Introduction
from Section 11
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
By
Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- 31 Introduction
- 32 Approaches to Multilevel Models of Fear: The What, Where, Why, How, and How Much?
- 33 Schaffner on Levels and Selves
- Section 12
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
Summary
In his chapter, Ken Schaffner dives into the variety of levels that are invoked in both the traditional fear center model and Joe LeDoux and Danny Pine’s (2016) two-system model of fear. In many ways, LeDoux wrote the book on the biology of fear conditioning and for him to claim (with Pine and others) that rodent models can never fully represent the biology of human fear has incredible gravitas.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Levels of Analysis in PsychopathologyCross-Disciplinary Perspectives, pp. 379 - 383Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Aaronson, C. J., Bender, D. S., Skodol, A. E., & Gunderson, J. G. (2006) ‘Comparison of attachment styles in borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.’ Psychiatric Quarterly, 77(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bender, D. S., & Skodol, A. E. (2007) ‘Borderline personality as self-other representational disturbance.’ Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(5), 500–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakatos, I. (1970) ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes.’ In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, J. E., & Pine, D. S. (2016) ‘Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: A two-system framework.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(11), 1083–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morey, L. C., & Bender, D. S. (2014) ‘Articulating a core dimension of personality pathology.’ In Oldham, J. M., Skodol, A. E., & Bender, D. S. (Eds.), The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook of personality disorders (2nd ed., pp. 39–54). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1988) ‘Five kinds of self‐knowledge.’ Philosophical Psychology, 1(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993) Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1956) ‘Empiricism and the philosophy of mind.’ In Feigl, H. & Scriven, M. (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 1, pp. 253–329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar