COGNITIVE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

COGNITION AND EMOTION

• What situations, events, from your life do you remember?

• Why do you remember those events?

What are emotions?

• Emotion can be defined as any particular feeling that

characterized such a state of mind, for example: love, hate,

joy etc.

• Emotions consist of three components:

– Physiological changes

– Subjective feeling of an emotion (cognition)

– Behaviour

NeocortexSensory cortex

Thalamus AMYGDALA

HIPOCAMPUS

Short route

Long route

Brainstem

LEDOUX DESCRIBES

TWO BIOLOGICAL

PATHWAYS OF

EMOTIONS IN THE

BRAIN

Biological factors in emotion

Cognitive factors in emotion

• Appraisal theory - Lazarus

• Lazarus emphasised the role of cognitions or ‘cognitive appraisals’

• He argued that provoking stimulus triggers a cognitive appraisal,

which is followed by the emotion and the physiological arousal

• He suggested we initially make a brief analysis of a situation in terms

of whether or not it represents a threat ( we appraise a situation)

• Cognitive appraisal of the situation determines the level of

physiological arousal and the specific type of emotion to be

experienced

Appraisal theory - Lazarus

• You hear footsteps behind you and you

think it may be a mugger – (cognitive

appraisals)

• so you begin to tremble, your heart beats

faster, and your breathing deepens

(physiological arousal) and at the same

time you experience fear (emotion)

Speisman et al. (1964)

• He showed college students a film about an initiation ceremony involving

unpleasant genital surgery

• Aim: investigate if people’s emotional reaction to the unpleasant film

could be manipulated – different soundtracks

• Group 1: trauma condition - narrative emphasizing the pain, danger, and

primitiveness of the operation

• Group 2: denial condition - narration denied the pain and potential harm

to the boys, describing participants as willing and happy

• Group 3: intellectualization condition - an anthropological interpretation

of the ceremony.

Speisman et al. (1964)

RESULTS:

• Participants reacted more emotionally to the trauma

condition

• support Lazarus’s theory – not the events itself but

interpretation or appraisal of events elicited emotion

CRITICAL THINKING:

• Lab experiment – artificial – lack of ecological validity

• Researchers use deception and put participants in unpleasant

situation

Emotion andcognitiveprocess: THE FLASHBULB THEORY

• described by Brown & Kulik (1977):

• Flashbulb memory refers to:

– vivid and detailed memories of

– highly emotional events

– that appear to be recorded in the brain as though with the help of a

camera’s flash

• Brown & Kulik suggested that a special mechanism in the brain is activated by

events which produce high levels of emotion and surprise, and which are seen

as particularly significant. As a result, the entire scene is 'printed' in memory as

a 'flash'.

Survey by Brown & Kulik 1977

• Participants were asked a series of questions testing

their memories of ten major events, such as the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963

• Results showed memories for such events were particularly vivid,

detailed and long lasting.

• People usually remembered where they were when they heard the

news, how they heard it, what they and others were doing at the time,

and the emotional impact of the news on themselves and those around

them

Neisser (1982) criticized Fashbulb Theory

• Questioned the idea of flashbulb memories - people don’t always

know that an event is important until later

• the memories are so vivid because the flashbulb memories are

governed by a storytelling schema followed by a specific narrative,

such as:

– place (where were we?),

– activity (what were we doing?),

– informant (who told us?) and

– affect (how do we feel about it)

Neisser & Harsch (1992)

• 28 January 1986 - 7 astronauts aboard the spaceship Challenger were killed on launch

• It was a shocking experience for those who watched the shuttle launch in person or on TV

• Neisser & Harsch investigated people’s memory accuracy of the incident – 24 hours after the accident and– again 2 years later

Neisser & Harsch (1992)

• The participants were very confident that memories were correct,

• but the researchers found that 40% of the participants had

distorted memories in the final reports they made

• Possibly post-event information had influenced their memories

• The researchers concluded that inaccuracy of emotional

memories is common

• Talarico & Robin (2003) found that emotional intensity was

often associated with greater memory confidence but not

with accuracy

The interaction of biological and cognitive factors in emotion: Two factor theory

1. PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL (BIOLOGIC) and

2. ATTRIBUTION (COGNITIVE)

• Theory states that without arousal/attribution we are

unable to experience any emotions

• External stimuli or situations causes physiological arousal

reaction, then cognitions are used to interpret it as an

emotion

Schachter and Singer (1962)

• Aim: To test the two factors theory that emotion comes from a

combination of arousal and person’s mind toward the situation.

• Methods: It is a controlled experiment. At the beginning of the

experiment, all participants had an injection of epinephrine

(Suproxin) which causing them shaky hands, pounding heart,

and increasing in breathing.

• Sample: 184 male college student that taking psychology at

Minnesota University

Schachter and Singer (1962) - Procedure

• The participants were injected by a doctor: epinephrine or placebo

• The participants were divided into 4 groups:

1. Epinephrine informed: Subjects were told their hands would start to shake, their heart will

start to pound, and their face may get warm and flushed

2. Epinephrine ignorant

3. Epinephrine misinformed: Subjects were told they would probably feel their feet go numb,

and have an itching sensation over parts of their body, and a slight headache

4. Control condition - placebo - saline solution - which had no side effect at all in contrast

• Then, the participants were put either in euphoria or anger situation.

• In euphoria situation, several tasks were designed to entertain and amuse the participants

• unlike the anger situation, numerous of tasks were performed to annoy the participants

Schachter and Singer (1962) - Finding

• The researchers had observed the participants through the one-way

mirror

• The researcher had concluded that in

• euphoria condition the misinformed participants were the happiest and

• the informed group felt the least happy

• On the other side, the participants that were in the anger condition, the

ignorant group felt the angriest

• and the least is also the informed group

• The same conclusion apply to both condition that the participants

understood why they felt this way

Dutton and Aron (1974)