Transcript PSY 394F Lecture #4 - University of Toronto

The cognitive approach
Lecture # 4: October 6, 2004
Erdmann & Van Lindern
• Support for Schacter: effects seen only when a
situationally appropriate cue is present
• Results also support James and autonomic
specificity because effects of orciprenaline were
observed in self-reports of anxiety, not anger…
(even though situation was anger-eliciting).
– Orciprenaline has physiological effects similar to
anxiety rather than anger
Cognitive approach: Appraisal
• Emphasizes the importance of cognition at the
beginning of the sequence of events leading up to
the elicitation of an emotion.
• In contrast, cognitive labeling (e.g., Schacter)
emphasizes the importance of cognition at the end of
the sequence.
• Modern appraisal research falls into one of two
different categories: component approaches or goalrelevance approaches.
Appraisal theories
• Magda Arnold (1960)… a new view.
• 1980s: A number of psychologists independently
proposed detailed and ‘comprehensive’ sets of
appraisal dimensions to explain the elicitation and
differentiation of emotion
• Methodology: Emotion episodes, verbal report
Definition of appraisal
• Arnold described these as: Direct, immediate,
nonreflective, automatic ‘sense judgments’ about
the harm or benefit that events signify for an
individual, given his/her experience and aims
• For Lazarus, appraisals are ‘relational meanings’
describing the implications of a particular object
or situation for one’s personal well-being
Richard Lazarus
• Cognitive-relational-motivational theory
• Primary versus secondary appraisals
• Core relational theme
• Know the evidence in support of the theory
Lazarus vs. Zajonc
• Zajonc: ‘Mere exposure effect’
• Shows that emotion can occur in the absence
of cognitive processing: “Preferences need no
inferences”.
• Main problem involves differences in the
definition of cognition.
Preferences vs. basic emotions
• Do you think that Lazarus and Zajonc are
discussing the same basic phenomenon?
– Alternative explanations for the ‘mere exposure
effect’ (e.g., priming, familiarity)
– Discrete basic emotions: Universal, functional
• E.g., Ekman’s basic emotions
Major criticisms of the appraisal approach
1) Critics challenge the claim that elaborate
cognitive evaluations can be performed during
the few milliseconds that seem sufficient to
bring about an emotion.
2) Emotions are ‘hot’, while cognition is ‘cold’
3) No agreement on the number or nature of
appraisal dimensions that exist.
What is missing? Another role for cognition?
• In Oatley and Johnson-Laird’s communicative theory,
a specific ‘mode’ of organization is imposed on brain
function when a particular emotion is elicited
• This has consequences for cognition / information
processing (i.e., the effects of emotion on cognition).
• Anecdote– Alone in the coffee shop at night
• Reading for next week: Mathews’ (1993) paper read it
in the context of functional considerations (i.e., Oatley
and Johnson-Laird’s theory).
Mode Theory: Oatley and Johnson-Laird’s
Communicative Theory (1988; 1995)
• There are a limited number of basic emotions
• Each represents the solution to a particular problem of
adaptation (species-specific)
• These have been incorporated into our nervous systems
through evolution and natural selection
• Functional, adaptive… and have consequences that are
superior to acting randomly, or not acting at all.
• Emotions are ‘heuristics’
‘Mode’ theory (continued)
• The elicitation of emotion imposes a particular
mode of organization on the nervous system,
consistent with the function of that particular
emotion.
• This simplifies and specializes us to respond to a
personally-relevant event or stimulus in our
environment in an adaptive manner.
• This is an example of a goal-relevance theory.
Thought question
• What differentiates basic emotions according to the
theories that we have studied so far in this course?
–
–
–
–
–
Darwinian / Evolutionary
James-Lange peripheral
Schachter / Mandler (cognitive labeling)
Cognitive: Appraisal theories
Cognitive: Goal-relevance theories (e.g., Oatley and
Johnson-Laird)