To what extent do cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion

Cognitive Level of Analysis

The James-Lange Theory

Emotional experience results from perceived bodily changes We see a bear!

Our heart begins to race and we run away

We notice this change in our bodies We feel scared, angry, excited etc as a result

James Lange contd

We feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike and afraid because we tremble

James Lange contd

We label our subjective state by inferring how we feel based on our perception of our own bodily state I am trembling therefore I must be scared...

Valins (1966)
Male Pps given false feedback about their heart rate whilst looking at images of semi-nude Playboy pin-ups. The researchers made it seem as though heart rate increased for come of the pictures but not others Really the feedback about heart rate was all fake They rated the images as sexier if they thought their heart rate had increased This clearly shows the link between cognition, biology and emotion

Laird (1974)
Facial feedback hypothesis Fitted 32 students with electrodes of their faces They were told to move their eyebrows, mouths, foreheads At same time shown cartoon pictures Pps rated cartoons as funnier and rated selves as happier if they were making an expression similar to a smile

Conclusions from Valins and Laird

Cognition can lead to feelings in absence of physiological arousal (thinking heart rate was increasing when it wasnt made male Pps feel sexually attracted to the pin ups) Behaviour e.g. facial expressions, can make us feel differently, (happier etc) AO3 It is possible that thinking a certain thought and putting your face in a certain shape could actually lead to biological changes in the brain such as release of certain neurotransmitters.

Levenson et al (1990)
Putting ones face into different emotional expressions (fear, anger, sadness, disgust, joy etc) did in fact match with different physiological patterns of activity relating to the ANS.

Linking back to James-Lange

You may not need to actually be physiologically aroused to have an emotional experience (Valins and Laird) this goes against James-Lange Also you can elicit physiological changes simply by putting your face into certain expressions (in the absence of any real emotion) also against James Lange

Other problems with J-L

does not explain why we know to run away, cry, strike or tremble in the first place Parrott and Lazarus agree that we must appraise/evaluate the situation (cognition), even sub-consciously first, in order for our body to take over and react.

Another theory: Cannon-Bard

Although we experience emotions as distinct from one another, they are all very similar at a physiological level (arousal); we simply label them differently due to the situation that we are in. Physiological arousal is independent to emotional experience;
we perceive the emotion inducing stimulus The thalamus sends a message to the cortex where we think about the stimulus and experience emotion The thalamus sends a separate signal to hypothalamus which signals the ANS to respond accordingly.

So is it true, do different experiences of emotion reflect the same or different physiological patterns?

Ax (1953)
Pps told study is about high blood pressure; rigged up to physiological measures (e.g. skin conductivity, heart and breathing rate, muscle action potential) told normal technician is sick and cover technician has previously been sacked for incompetence and arrogance repeated measures with counterbalancing; Pps made to feel fear then anger or anger then fear physiological measures taken.

Ax contd
Fear- electric shock of increasingly voltage given to pp until they complained and then sparks came off machine! (ETHICS!!) Anger- technician jostled the Pps, was rude to the nurse in front of Pps and then blamed Pps when equipment did not work (more ETHICS!!)

Ax (1953) Results
14 measures were taken across the two conditions and of these 7 differed significantly depending on whether the Pps was in the fear or anger condition Fear physiological changes associated more with release of adrenaline took place Anger - physiological changes associated more with release of noradrenaline took place This goes against Cannon-Bard as does Levenson

Cognitive Labelling theory: Schacter

Although Ax does suggest some differences between emotions regarding biological arousal patterns, Schacter suggests these differences are much more subtle than the range of emotions experienced would suggest. Schacter believes physiological arousal is necessary but not sufficient to cause emotion the actual emotion experienced requires cognition. (Arguably arousal may not be necessary Valins)

Support for Schacter; arousal is not sufficient on its own

Maranon 210 Pps were injected with adrenaline 71% felt symptoms in body but no emotional state Most of the rest felt as if emotions The only ones who reported that they did feel certain emotions were later found to have had to imagine /remember an emotional event to get this experience of feeling emotional

Support that physiological arousal is necessary for emotion

FOR: Hohmann (1966) Pps with spinal cord damage meaning
ANS activity was also damaged suffered diminshed intensity of emotions, i.e. Low/no arousal =no/low emotion.

AGANIST;
Valins: no real arousal (told heart rate going up when it wasnt) felt more attracted to the pin ups. Lesions to spinal cord in dogs and removal of Sympathetic nervous system in cats meant they could not experience arousal however emotional experience seemed unaffected A case study of a human with similar spinal cord damage; the person showed full range of emotions of normal intensity! (Dana 1921)

More on cognitive labelling theory

Schacter believed that
bodily arousal and experience of emotion are not independent as Cannon suggested Arousal does not always precede onset of emotion (as James-Lange suggests) we become aroused (and this is necessary for emotion) but the nature of the arousal is immaterial, how we appraise or label our bodily reactions determines the emotions we feel. This is known as two factor theory

Schacter and Singer (1962) Adrenaline Experiment

Pps told they would get vitamin injection to see its effect on vision; really it was adrenaline 4 groups randomly allocated
A. Accurate information about side effects of adrenaline (F and F) B. False information about side effects ( itching and headaches) C. No info on side effects D. Given saline not adrenaline so no side effects to be experienced.

 Pps sat in waiting room waiting for vision test They met a stooge:
For half the PPs the stooge was happy and frivolous (played with hula hoop, made paper aeroplanes and laughed a lot) Other half; stooge was angry (tore up a questionnaire the Pps were meant to fill in)

Real pps were observed to see whether they joined in with the stooge They were also given self report scales to complete re their experiences

 Group A and D were much less likely to join in with stooge or report feeling joyful or angry as the stooge appeared. Groups B and C were more likely to behave similarly and report similar emotions to those displayed by the stooge, i.e. They interpreted the effects of the adrenaline either as joy or anger as displayed by the stooge.

Interpreting the findings

The Pps (group b and c), in absence of any logical reason for the bodily sensations they experienced, looked to what was going on around them in order to label the experience (joy/anger) When we have a logical reason for the bodily sensation (I was injected with adrenaline group a), there is no need to look to other possible reasons Physiological arousal is however necessary to become emotional otherwise group d would have reported emotions similar to the stooge possibly but they didnt.

Love on a suspension bridge (Aron and Dutton, 1972)

Males aged 18-35 at Capilano Canyon in Canada. Attractive female interviewer stop the Pps and asks the some questions supposedly to measure effects of scenery on creativity; they are asked to make up a short story about an ambiguous image; the story is later scored for sexual content, (DV).

 IV: half interviewed on very high and very unstable suspension bridge (high arousal), other half on low solid bridge (low arousal) Pps interviewed in high arousal condition were more likely to give stories high in sexual content and were 4 x more likely to take up opportunity to call interviewer back for info about the her study

Interpreting the findings

Support s Schacter theory that arousal was interpreted according to the situation; they did not interpret their arousal as fear but attributed it to the interviewer being sexy! They mislabelled their fear as sexual attraction. Others have called Schacters theory the juke box theory of emotion; arousal is the coin that gets the juke box going; cognition is the pressing of the button that selects which emotional tune to play (Mandler , 1984)

Conclusions
Most emotion theorists do now agree that the experience of emotion is post-cognitive, i.e. we have to consider a range of matters before settling on what the cause of our bodily sensations is Some times we look to other to guide our thoughts as in S and S and D and A but we also consider our own personal past experiences and call up memories of times when we have experienced such sensations before and what emotion they were linked to. Our cognitive appraisal may not happen at a conscious level (Lazarus (1982) and this can sometimes give the impression that emotion has occurred with cognition (e.g. where we feel a certain way about someone (uneasy) but we cant really explain why.

Cognition, emotion and arousal

Our thoughts about why a person behaved as they did often are linked to whether the person makes us feel angry, e.g. if a friend with autism argues with you over something you consider petty you might not get angry because you have understood that the situation may seem very different to them, if another friend argues about the same seemingly petty detail you start to feel angry because you see no reason for them to be so pedantic