Electrodermal and subjective reactions to fear‐relevant stimuli under threat of shock

Three experiments investigated normal subjects' reactions to pictures of fear‐relevant stimuli (snakes, spiders, guns) and control stimuli (e.g., flowers, rabbits) under threat of electric shock. First‐interval electrodermal responses (FTRs) and shock expectancy ratings were recorded. Experiment 1 demonstrated larger FTRs and expectancy ratings to fear‐relevant stimuli, with and without threat of electric shock. In Experiment 2, trait anxious subjects showed elevated expectancy ratings that were additive with the bias associated with fear‐relevant stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrated that reactions to fear‐relevant stimuli were not an artefact of the expectancy rating task. There were no substantial differences between biological and technological fear‐relevant stimuli. Overall, the experiments confirm that fear‐relevant stimuli elicit larger reactions in the absence of any specific manipulation, such as conditioning. The results are most consistent with cognitive models that emphasise learning rather than genetic factors, and that attribute electrodermal reactions to elevated expectancy of aversive events

Volunteering and its relationship with personal and neighborhood well-being

Although a relationship between volunteering and well-being has been demonstrated in numerous studies, well-being has generally been poorly operationalized and often defined by the relative absence of pathology. In this study, the authors take a positive approach to defining well-being and investigate the relationship between volunteering and personal and neighborhood well-being. The theoretical approach incorporates elements of the homeostatic model of well-being. A sample of 1,289 adults across Australia completed a questionnaire that assessed personal and neighborhood wellbeing, personality factors, and the psychosocial resources implicated in the homeostatic model of well-being. Analyses reveal that volunteers had higher personal and neighborhood well-being than nonvolunteers and that volunteering contributed additional variance in well-being even after psychosocial and personality factors were accounted for. The findings are discussed in terms of previous research and the homeostatic model of well-being, and it is argued that the relationship between volunteering and well-being is robust.<br /