Draft:Easterbrook cue-utilisation hypothesis
Submission declined on 6 February 2024 by Sungodtemple (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: No independent sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Easterbrook Cue-utilization Hypothesis[edit]
In "The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior", the hypothesis tested suggests that under high-stress conditions, individuals tend to focus on a narrower set of cues and may overlook relevant information, leading to a decrease in decision-making effectiveness.
Easterbrook's paper attempts to expand and explore generalizations concerning "emotion and the organization of behavior", in order to verify that consistent emotional arousal reduces the range of cues that an organism uses, and that this reduction in range of cue utilization influences actions in ways that are either organizing or disorganizing, depending on the behavior concerned.
In each of the experiments alluded to in the paper, Easterbrook found that shrinkage or reduction in the range of cue utilization was associated with an increase in drive. In his words (Easterbrook, Page 1, §4): "it is an empirically derived generalization that, when the direction of behavior is constant, increase in drive is associated with a reduction in the range of cue use.".
References[edit]
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183–201. doi:10.1037/h0047707[1]
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.