A new stage and cognitive-energetical theory: A reply to Smulders and vander Molen (2000)

Smulders and van der Molen (Smulders, F., van der Molen, M.W., 2000. Exhaus tive additivity suggests a new stage not an alternative model: A commentary on Fowler, Hofer and Lipitkas (2000). Biol. Psychol. - in press) criticize our two-tiered cognitive - energetical model on two grounds: (1) it predic ts 'exhaustive interactivity' rather than 'exhaustive additivity'; and (2) our results are better explained by the hypothesis of a new stage rather th an gating arising from a lower energetical tier. We show that the two-tiere d model predicts additivity not interactivity and that the 'new stage' hypo thesis requires not only a new stage but also a new energetical source and thus, is neither parsimonious nor preserves Sanders original model (Sanders , A., 1983. Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychol. 53, 61-97). We argue further that a fundamental problem for cognitive-energ etical theory is its failure to provide a principled method for distinguish ing between energetical and non-energetical stressors. The two-tiered model points to a solution to this problem by capitalizing on recent advances in our understanding of the relationship between neurotransmitter systems and energetical mechanisms. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved .