A Comparison of Two Neurobiological Models of Fear and Anxiety: A "Construct Validity" Application?

The main focus of this article is on anapplicationof "construct validity," although it is better thought of as aconstruct-progressivity assessment(CPA) for reasons developed in the article and related to the concepts of "truth" and "validity" in science. The specific example presented involves the recent LeDoux and Pine two-system model (TSM) and the more traditional fear-center model (FCM), two important constructs in even broader debates in recent fear research. The focal point of the TSM-FCM dispute is arguably the contrasting interpretation of four empirical "findings" that are summarized in a section on findings of this article and then explored later in depth as "empirical arguments." This notion of an empirical argument is closely related to Kane's "argument-based" analysis of construct validity. In addition, it is essential to describe and then apply what are called "epistemic values" to the TSM-FCM example. The CPA in the present article ultimately tilts in favor of the TSM and against the FCM, on empirical as well as on more general epistemic-value grounds, with the caveat that any CPA is temporally contingent and may reach a different conclusion later, depending on future instruments and advances.