The concept of signal anxiety comes from Freud's 1926 paper where he
radically alters his earlier theory of neurotic anxiety according to which
neurotic anxiety was the result of excess libido (caused by repression
preventing drive discharge) being transformed into anxiety. Freud 1926
reverses the causal relation between repression and anxiety. Whereas
earlier repression causes anxiety, his 1926 theory claims that anxiety is
the cause of repression.

The most central idea of 1926 is that neurotic anxiety can be explained by
the same principles as realistic anxiety. Both are caused by the
expectation of danger. In the case of neurotic anxiety the expected danger
is unconscious and is usually one of 4 kinds: loss of the love object, loss
of love, castration, and superego disapproval.

Anxiety 1926 is regarded as a warning signal of danger, but there is a
conceptual confusion in Freud's theory because most expectations are
learned. The most common definition of "signal" is something that CAUSES an
expectation, but anxiety is the EFFECT of an expectation. In the case of
realistic anxiety as illustrated by avoidance conditioning in animals there
is always a signal (light, buzzer) warning of the danger (electric shock)
other than anxiety, but anxiety plays a crucial motivating role in causing
the avoidance response (parallel to defense in the case of neurotic
anxiety).

Papers in Psa & Contemporary Thought 1990, JAPA 1994, and IJPA 1996 discuss
this in more detail. I have a question: Why will nobody debate the
revisions I have proposed for signal anxiety theory which resolve some of
its logical inconsistencies?

Eric Gillett MD [log in to unmask]