Block 1.1 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS

Block 1.1 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS Problem 1 - Emotion and Arousal Important Definitions AROUSAL (based on apa dictionary)

• A state of physiological activation or cortical responsiveness, associated w/

sensory stimulation & activation of fibres from the reticular activating system

• A state of excitement or energy expenditure linked to an emotion

a state of being activated EMOTION (based on apa dictionary) A complex reaction pattern, involving experiental, behavioural and physiological elements by which an individual attempts to deal w/ a personally significant matter or event

• long-lasting

MOOD

•  any short-lived spontaneous emotional state, usually of low intensity (e.g., a

cheerful mood, an irritable mood).

•  a disposition to respond emotionally in a particular way that may last for

hours, days, or even weeks, perhaps at a low level and without the person knowing what prompted the state. Moods differ from emotions in lacking an object; for example, the emotion of anger can be aroused by an insult, but an angry mood may arise when one does not know what one is angry about or what elicited the anger. Disturbances in mood are characteristic of mood disorders. 1 / 4

Block 1.1 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS Theories of emotion - Physiological aspects of emotion

(WILLIAM) JAMES – (CARL) LANGE THEORY

different emotions provoke different physiological responses Claim the specific character of the biological changes is crucial

Explanation:

awareness of bodily changes turns into perception into emotion emotion & physiological response are connected criticism -arousal does not guarantee emotion -identical responses are associated w several different emotions -arousal is not necessary for emotion CANNON- BARD THEORY/ Thalamic theory disagrees w/ James-Lange-Theory “its not easy to distinguish the bodily changes associated w/ different emotions” Study/ research People injected w/ epinephrine  felt bodily changes / felt no emotion or only as if (anti-James-Lange)

SCHACHTER- SINGER-THEORY

Emotion depends on a person`s judgement on why their body has changed

Criticism:

Study that criticizes Schachter-Singer-Theory bodily arousal only partially determines emotion Perceptions of emotions due to bodily arousal can be illusions Various emotions are similar in terms of the body’s responses [1 type of body-response many emotions] Two-factor-theory of emotion by Schachter and Singer 1959 Two factors necessary to deal a specific emotion

• Person has to experience physiological arousal
• They have to make a cognitive interpretation that explains the source of arousal [other people

influence interpretation of our arousal but only if physical arousal is low] ↓ ☆ What happens when we are unclear about our emotion? (interpretation of arousal) we tend to interpret our emotions based on watching others and match their emotional reactions

FOCUS ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL

FOCUS ON THE COGNITIVE APPRAISAL

TWO-FACTOR-THEORY OF EMOTION 2 / 4

Block 1.1 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS people must be present before arousal in order to copy them Misattribution Paradigm- Emotional lability by Schachter and Singer Assumption: Emotions depend on cognitive label we assign them(casual attribution to undifferentiated arousal) change label of arousalchange emotion = depression into cheerfulness effect is limited emotions are less labile than expected Excitation transfer model by Zillmann, 1979,1988

FACTORS CREATING AN EMOTION

1) learnt (aggressive) behaviour 2) arousal or excitation from another source 3) person’s interpretation of arousal state (emotional response seems appropriate)

MISATTRIBUTION

arousal by one thing can be moved or added to a different thing seems like the 2nd thing cause the arousal arousal intensifies emotional reactions (- or +) even w/o distress

ELEKTRIC SHOCK EXPERIMENT

-men get hard and mild electric shocks -hard shocks = more schared = more attracted to female confederate -w/o confederate = more ansxious -if confederate got shocks didn’t matter “damsel in distress” does not work Two- Factor – Theory of Emotion Missattribution Passionate Love = an intense emotional, heart-thumping state of absorption in another person excitation transfer model works as well

AROUSAL -ATTRACTION EFFECT

Works for misattribution but also w/o misattribution (knowing the source of arousal) Theory of Misattribution in Love Bescheid and Walster (later Hatfield) 3 / 4

Block 1.1 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS [Similar to Schachter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion] 1) Heightened state of physical arousal 2) Belief that arousal wad triggered by beloved person (cognitive appraisal) Autobiographical memories recollections of sequences of events in one`s life  basis for self-concept ! in general remembering recent past events better than distant past events[recent > distant ]

↕ BUT

1) Reminiscence Bump – older people remember early adulthood pretty well [busy years] 2) Transitional firsts (e.g. 1st day of school/ last day of senior yrs) ↑ ☆We remember moments w/ a strong emotional connection!↓ Flashbulb memories “print” dramatic events in memory

Biological: survival purpose

Not exactly accurate but feel special Have a prominent place in our biographies Experiments

Dutton & Aron:

Some Evidence for Heightened Sexual Attractions and Conditions of High Anxiety Goal Proving that anxiety leads to sexual attraction (due to misattribution) Design

• Experiment: Capilano Bridge (male subjects, scary bridge, the more fear, the more sexual their

reports, arousal stimulates/enhances emotion/ stories with sexual )

• Experiment: same set up, but different bridge, approached subjects 10min after passing bridge,

less Rückrufe and less sexual stories

• Experiments: anticipation of electroshock (more anxiety when confronted with strong shock,

strong shock + female=less anxiety, sexual imagery higher when both strong shock)

Love at First Fright: Rollercoaster experiment by Meston & Frohlich

(2002)

Goal examine the effect of residual nervous system arousal (after rollercoaster) on perception of sexual attraction, under consideration of romantic and non-romantic partners; male and female Design -took a picture of seatmate (opposite gender) and showed it to them pre ride -pre rating and post rating of image of person sitting next to them Results People (non-romantic partner): AFTER the ride, showed increased ratings/ dating desirability towards the photograph, than people entering the ride People w/ a romantic partner showed no difference in attractiveness ratings before and after the ride // sometimes even less attractive due to physical reasons Arousal from riding the rollercoaster led to increased rating attractiveness but only for person w/o a romantic partner

• / 4