Which of the following theories of emotion has a cognitive labeling component?

Want to join the conversation?

• 

  In 2016, what theory do scientist believe actively?

• Is the primary difference between James-Lange and Schachter-Singer theories just that Schachter-Singer identifies reason for the event as well as the emotion? Because James-Lange's Interpretation phase appears to only interpret the physiological response and not the event. Also, could we say that the Lazarus Theory sort of integrates elements of all the other theories into a more comprehensive theory?

  • 

    Yes, Schachter-Singer has to identify the event as well as the physiological response in order to produce an emotion. James-Lange only has to identify the physiological response. From my point of view I think the Lazarus theory is putting the cognitive response first before both physiological and emotion. I think it doesn't comprehend all the other theories because in the first three physiological response is either first or concurrently activated with emotion.

• Why is there no theory that puts emotion before a physiological response? It seems more reasonable than James-Lange, Schachter-Singer or Cannon-Bard at least. When you spot a pack of wolves closing in on you, you need to first identify wolves as a threat for your body to get ready and run, this must involve a cognitive phase. Infants that don't have fear for wolves will not get a fight-or flight response. There is no fixed innate physiological response for most stimuli without a cognitive phase.

  • 

    I think the Schatcher-Singer theory addresses this quite well actually. Basically, it says that for us to experience emotion we must: 1) be physically aroused and 2) cognitively label that arousal. In other words, while being aroused is what triggers our emotion, it's our cognition that directs that emotion.

    You're right in saying infants don't have the same flight or flight response but this is because they aren't able to cognitively appraise the situation as we are.

    To address this scenario using the S-S theory: You see a pack of wolves and that causes an arousal, you cognitively label that arousal (palpitating heart) as fear. Another example of cognitive labeling is: you come home to find a box with your name on it and a big bow. Naturally, your heart starts to palpitate. You would cognitively label this emotion as excitement (in contrast to the previous example where you labeled it as fear).

    It would not be possible to have an emotion BEFORE a physiological response. This is simply because emotion IS a physiological response. (If you are able to prove otherwise, you may be the next famous psychologist :). Just be sure you give me the credit for inspiring you with this response ).

    *note: the Lazarus theory also helps answer your question a bit but since it won't be on the MCAT I left it out.*

    Hope this helped/made sense!

• Ok Im confused, at

  3:00

  , when discussing how cannon-bard felt that james-lange theory was inconsistent because you can experience a physiological response of increased heart-rate from running and an emotion not be triggered, Isn't that the same thing as cannon-bard theory saying that physiological response and emotion happen at the same time. My heart racing after running a mile doesn't simultaneously trigger an emotion.

  • What he is saying is Cannon-Bard believed that you experience raised heart rate and other things without having to have an emotion to back it up, though if you do have an emotional trigger it will happen at the same time though, I'm with you he could have been a little more thorough about the whole physical activation and separating it from the emotional activations.

• Just curious as where Behavioural responses come into play here? There doesn't seem to be any mention of them, only physiological responses

  • Well, in the other ones it covered how behavioral responses are similar to physiological responses. So, crying for example, is a behavioral response to being sad because not all people cry.

• I don't see the usefulness of these theories

  • Don't skimp out on learning these, even if they don't seem useful. I am revisiting them for a reason.

• Why does the physiological have to be before or after or even connected to the emotional response? They seem to perform perform different functions. The physiological response prepares instantly for action, for example, it may even include jumping out of the way. The event is the result of a crude form of pattern recognition which is probably directly taken from the sensory information with no analysis (the smell of a cat for example). The emotional response is more a reaction in accordance with a 'rough' reaction in accordance with beliefs and a general pattern recognition of the event (there is a perception of a cat so evoke memories of family pets, scratching or dangerous allergic reactions). Kind of like a preliminary analysis. This provides a quick response to the situation and secondary physiological responses like smiling. Later, after thinking and applying problem solving, the reaction can be reassessed (the cat didn't scratch me this time) and relearning of a more appropriate response, so there are three pathways: physiological, emotional and rational and they play into each other but are not dependent on each other.

  • The three categories you have created for responses to stimuli are all dependent on one another. The main problem is that your first category, 'physiological' should really be called 'reflex.'

    Reflexes, generally, move through a reflex arc: sensation of a stimulus is received by sensory neurons, which fire and send signals through the afferent pathway to interneurons in the spinal cord (usually). These interneurons, without sending the signal to the brain for processing, then pass the signal along to the efferent pathway to the motor neurons, which will tell skeletal muscle (in most cases, though it can be many different things like an endocrine organ) how to react to the stimulus.

    This is what you meant by a physiological response - it is a reflex. It is not subjected by the brain to perception or to cognitive processing such as in what you categorized as 'rational' response. However, reflexes, emotions, and rational thought ALL have a physiological basis. They are all subject to the same physiological processes and all depend on neurons talking to one another by the same basic functionality.

• For Schachter-Singer Theory - is this cognitive labeling defined to be unconscious or conscious, or both?

  For Lazarus Theory - is this cognitive appraisal (due to situation factors) defined to be unconscious or conscious, or both?

• When it comes to emotional wellness, I would think that the Lazarus Theory would work perfectly well. However, if you have an immense amount of emotional damage would it not be a good idea to use the Schachter-Singer theory to assist them in identifying their emotions?

• If a human consciously labels/appraises an event, will that change the physiological and emotional response?

  For example, if I have always been afraid of snakes, but if I consciously start to label them as "cool" and "interesting" instead of "terrifying", would that change my emotions and physiological responses according to the Lazarus theory?

What theory of emotion contains a cognitive component?

Which of the following theories of emotion has a cognitive labeling component quizlet?

What is the Schachter's cognitive theory of emotion?

Which theory of emotions states we label our emotions?