To what extent do cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion? (22)
To What Extent (22) – Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.
Components in Emotion
- Physiological changes e.g. arousal of the automatic nervous system and endocrine system that are not conscious.
- Subjective feelings of a person’s emotion (e.g. happiness).
- Associated behaviour e.g. smiling or running away.
Biological Interaction
Neurobiological contribution to emotion (Theorist: LeDoux)
Two routes from sensory stimulus to Amygdala
1. Fast route – Thalamus to Amygdala
- Less logical thought process
- Causes an instinctive motor response
- Heavily influenced by the emotional arousal
2. Slow route – Thalamus > Cortex > Hippocampus > Amygdala
- Analyses stimuli to give suitable reaction
- Logic process took over instinctive emotional responses
| LeDoux – Fear in rats experiment (Biological factors in emotion) |
| [A] |
Investigate the role of the amygdala. |
| [P] |
- Rats were conditioned to feel fear when they hear the sound of a bell.
- Assumption that the brian has made a connection between the bell and fear.
- LeDoux lesioned the rats to find out which part of the brain made the connection between the bell and fear.
|
| [F] |
- After several lesions, they removed the Auditory Thalamus.
- The rats did not show respond to the bell with fear anymore.
- In further studies, they found out that lesions on one site of the amygdala was able to stop blood pressure from rising.
|
| [C] |
- This shows that there are biological interactions with emotions.
|
| [E] |
- Unethical study
- Induced feat in subjects, caused mental harm.
- Performed lesioning on subjects, cause physical harm.
- Subjects did not have rights to withdraw.
|
Cognitive Interaction
Theory of Appraisal (Theorist: Lazarus)
- A thought must occur before one experiences any emotion or physiological responses.
- People make an appraisal of the situation.
- Then they act according to the interpretation/appraisal of situation.
- What they are suppose to feel that best fits the situation.
- Primary appraisal – Evaluation of the nature of the threat. e.g. “am I going to die?”
- Secondary appraisal – Evaluation of possible ways to cope with the situation. e.g. “how should I feel and react?”
- Positive emotions emerges if appraisal assesses potential benefit
- Negative emotions emerges if appraisal assesses potential harm
| Spiesman et al. – Audio track interfering with emotion |
| [A] |
Prove the Theory of Appraisal can interfere with emotion. |
| [P] |
- Participants were shown a documentary of an unpleasant traditional ritual.
- There were three groups of participants.
- Group 1: Trauma group
- They were shown the documentary with a soundtrack that emphasized the pain.
- Group 2: Denial group
- They were shown the documentary with a soundtrack which suggested that the ritual was joyful and happy.
- Group 3: Intellectualisation group
- They were shown the documentary with a soundtrack that gave an anthropological interpretation of the ritual.
|
| [F] |
- Participants reacted more emotionally in the Trauma group when compared with the other two.
- Because they evaluated the situation (painful soundtrack).
- Thought it was appropriate to display negative emotions because situation showed potential harm.
|
| [C] |
- Shows that through appraising the situation, different emotions can be displayed with the same stimuli.
- Hence showing the Theory of Appraisal (cognition) can interfere with emotion.
|
| [E] |
- Ecological validity: Low, lab conditions.
- Controlled environment, removes confounding variable.
|
Both Cognitive and Biological Interaction
Two Factor Theory of Emotion – Schachter & Singer
- We first watch what we do and feel and then deduce our nature from this
- 1st factor – Experience physiological arousal, then try to find a label to explain our feelings (looking at what we are doing and what is happening at the time of arousal).
- 2nd factor – We decide what we make of the feelings we have.
| Schachter & Singer – Injection study (Two Factor Theory of Emotion) |
| [A] |
Show that both cognition and biological factors interact with emotion. |
| [P] |
- 184 male college students participated in the experiment. They were taken to a private room.
- The experimenter told them the aim of the experiment was to see “the effect of vitamin injection on visual skills”.
- Deception: In actual fact the aim of the experiment was to test the Two Factor Theory of Emotion.
- The participants were given either a placebo shot (with no side effects) or an adrenalin shot.
- The effects was increased heart rates, blood pressure, blood sugar level and respiration.
- The effects started showing at 3 minutes and lasted for 10 minutes to an hour.
- Participants were put into one of the 4 experimental conditions.
1. Adrenalin ignorant – participants with adrenalin were not told of the effects.
2. Adrenalin informed – participants were informed with the side effects so they were prepared.
3. Adrenalin misinformed – participants were not informed with the true side effects.
4. Control – placebo injection without being told what side effects to expect.
- Participants were then assigned either
- Euphoria (feeling of happy) condition – Assistant in the waiting room carried out silly actions to entertain participants.
- Anger condition – Assistant in the waiting room annoyed the participant.
- Researchers observed through one-way mirror.
- Participants filled in a self appraisal form.
|
| [F] |
- Euphoria condition
- Misinformed participants were feeling happier than all other groups.
- Ignorant participants were the second happiest.
- Anger condition
- Ignorant participants felt the angriest.
- Placebo participants felt the second angriest.
|
| [C] |
- Participants were more influenced by the assistant because they had no explanation for the emotion high.
- Leads to a wrong labeling of the physiological responses.
- Supports the Two Factor Theory of Emotion.
- Physiological arousal in different emotion is entirely the same.
- We label our arousal according to cognition.
- Cannot fully evaluate the feeling of emotional arousal.
- Leading to misattribution
- Influenced by surrounding situation.
|
| [E] |
- Observations and self appraisal of emotion was subjective.
- Measurements were rudimentary, only pulse was measured.
- Low in ecologically validity
- Lab experiment, unlikely to have a sudden emotional arousal.
- Emotion arousal might be caused by external stimuli (i.e. the other way around).
- Unethical: Induced anger and aggression in participants.
|
Biological interaction
- Increase in adrenaline lead towards a physiological arousal.
- Increased heart rate, respiration.
Cognitive interaction
- Attributing physiological responses to emotion arousal due to situational stimuli.
- Labeling of physiological responses.