In defense of the maximal adaptability model

Introduction: In a recent work, Doohan and colleagues (this Journal) have reported an experiment designed to evaluate the predictions of the Maximal Adaptability Model.Method: The experimental data and results of the above study were analyzed in order to reassess the validity and applicability of the conclusions offered therein.Results: The stress insensitivity of the congruent Stroop task employed is entirely consistent with the predictions of the Maximal Adaptability Model, but this same outcome strongly questions the validity of the standard, inverted-U description of the relationship of stress and performance. In this respect, theirs are valuable and useful data. Similarly, the utility of the incongruent performance measure here is also of limited determinability. Doohan and colleagues' inappropriate concatenation of stress with stable body temperatures, albeit at elevated levels, fails to consider the criticality of the need for the occurrence of dynamic instability in which such responses are actually predicted to exhibit consistent and significant performance decrement.Conclusions: Doohan and colleagues findings argue that the standard inverted-U description relating stress to performance is doubtful as a comprehensive description. In contrast, the extended-U, Maximal Adaptability Model withstands the present assault since the performance task employed imposes little in terms of absolute levels of attentional demand. Indeed, it is strongly supported by this outcome. Recommendations for future evaluations of the Maximal Adaptability Model are promulgated.

Automated summary

In this study, the experimental data and results of an evaluation of the Maximal Adaptability Model were analyzed. The findings support the predictions of the model regarding stress insensitivity but question the validity of the standard inverted-U description of the relationship between stress and performance. The study provides valuable data for future evaluations of the model.