To what extent do cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion?

The meanings of the concept emotion are diverse. Emotion relates to moods, feelings, temperament, motivation, and much more. According to the International Baccalaureate course Theory of Knowledge, emotion is a way of knowing the world, and is considered to play a key role in influencing our thoughts and curiosity (International baccalaureate organization, 2008). Psychologists view emotions as types of behavior and internal states of the mind. How psychologists define emotion depend on what perspective they have. A biologically oriented psychologist defines emotion as physiological behavior; body arousal, hormones, brain activity and facial expressions are considered to be associated with pleasant or unpleasant mental states of the mind. Conversely, cognitive psychologists focus on the mental aspects of emotions and how the unconscious and conscious mental processes influence emotional experiences and actions. This essay will, with the use of examples, discuss the biological and cognitive views, their interaction and mutual influence on emotion. Biological psychologists view emotion as a primarily somatic process. Those somatic processes may be facial expressions, physiological changes, such as arousal of the autonomic nervous system and the endocrine system, brain activity and neurochemical processes. The biological view can be illustrated by the words of William James, an early theorist on emotion who claimed that: bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. (James, 1884, p. 189f) This reductionist view on emotion can also be implied in Tomkins facial feedback hypothesis that facial expression always forms a part of an emotion (As cited by Ekman, 1993, p. 388). Ekman (1993) has commented that it may be possible to experience emotion without any activity in the nervous system, but that there is not yet any definite evidence that such emotions exist. There is, on the other hand, evidence in favor of the facial feedback hypothesis. In Stracks, Martins & Steppers famous study participants rated cartoons while holding a pen either in their lips or in their teeth. Those participants that held the pen in their teeth, thus forcing them to smile, rated the cartoons as funnier than those who held their pen in their lips (As cited by Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Fredrickson, & Loftus, 2003, p. 408). Another researcher with a biological view on emotion is Le Doux. Basing his research on animals, he investigated the brains emotional circuit. Le Doux discovered that for fear responses, there are two neurological pathways. The short route, that goes from the sensory store in the thalamus to the amygdala, and the long route, which traverses the neocortex and the hippocampus before it results in a fear response. Le Doux argues that there is an evolutionary advantage of having two separate pathways for fear responses. During danger, the short route is effective, as it will lead to a quick, but often inaccurate response. The long route, however, is slower, but will allow for a more thorough evaluation of a situation, and a more appropriate response. (As cited by Crane, & Hannibal, 2009, p. 89) A personal experience may help to illustrate this. One day I was walking in the jungle at the island of Kut in Thailand. Suddenly, I thought I caught the glimpse of a snake hanging from a tree next to me. I jumped back in fear and screamed. After a second look I realized it was just a regular vine and I could relax. This event can be explained by the short and long route of fear responses.

At the first instant, my short route was tricked that what I saw was a snake, and I acted out of self preservation. Except for the embarrassment (people were watching), this act could have saved my life in case it had been a real snake. When I was able to make a more thorough assessment of the situation (the long route), I was able to behave more appropriately. There is a large body of evidence to support the view of biological influences on behavior. Many body chemicals are related to certain emotional states, such as oxytocin and vasopressin for feelings of love in women and men, adrenaline for stress sensations, and serotonin for depressive moods. Certain areas in the brain, such as the prefrontal lobe and the amygdala, are also related to emotional processing. One should however be cautious in drawing too far reaching conclusions, as the research suffers from methodological weaknesses. Biological research on emotion is mainly experimental and findings are often based on non-human animals, questioning its applicability to humans in real life situations. Further on, it cannot be ascertained that all types of emotions are influenced to the same extent and in the same way by biological processes. Le Douxs findings may only be valid for fear, but not for more positive or elevated emotions, such as admiration or gratitude. In favor of this argument is the fact that research has identified a multitude of interacting brain regions for emotions, and there is suggestive evidence that separate brain regions process different emotions. (Dalgliesh, 2004) Notwithstanding, this criticism does not disprove the hypothesis that emotions are primarily biological. Even though Le Douxs studies have methodological issues, they hint that there is a strong biological foundation for emotion. His findings suggest that the neurological pathways from the emotional systems of the brain are stronger to than from the cognitive systems. This implies that emotion is a more primary process than cognition and that the core of it is unconscious. It might even be that the conscious, subjective experience of emotional experience is only secondary, as suggested by Libets, Wrights, Feinsteins, and Pearls (1979) study. This conscious after-image of emotion might therefore, from a biological perspective, be unable to influence actions related to the experience. In contrast, cognitive psychologists assume that conscious and unconscious mental processes can influence our emotions. This principle guides cognitive and rational emotive therapies, which assume that cognitions and emotions are interrelated, and that negative cognitions will lead to negative emotions. Those negative emotions may come out of peoples faulty interpretations of experiences, and that it is by raising awareness of, challenging and changing those beliefs that we may alter our mood. Though this therapeutic model does not explain the interactions of cognitions and emotions in great detail, it has a proven effectiveness in treatment of patients with mood disorders. (e.g. Lyon & Woods, 1991). Some neuroimaging studies have even found brain changes in the cortex and limbic system after cognitive therapy, the primary brain regions for emotional processing. (See Jamison, 2010) The therapeutic success of cognitive therapy along with Le Douxs research implies that although we may have less ability to deal with our instinctual or automatic emotional responses, we may have, at least in the long run, more control over our mood, and we may also be able to repress, control or alter our emotional responses once they have reached our awareness. Which cognitive process is it then that cognitive psychologists believe is essential for emotion? Cognitive researchers on emotion usually emphasize the importance of

cognitive appraisal. Appraisals are interpretations of situations and how they will affect ones well being. Those appraisals, that are both conscious and unconscious, contribute to the quality and intensity of an emotion. Lazarus, Averill, and Opton have identified two components of appraisal. The first type is the primary appraisal, where the organism assesses the significance or meaning of the event and the second type is the secondary appraisal, when the organism appraises the consequence of the event and decides on how to act. For example, imagine that you are about to give a speech in front of 500 people. As a primary appraisal, you will assess the importance of the event. Unconsciously or consciously you may think it is a very important event, as it will affect others perception of you and your self image. Maybe you will think that you are not up to the task. This is what Lazarus, Averill and Opton call the primary appraisal. As a second stage of your appraisal, you consider how a success or failure will affect your well-being and consequently what your emotional reaction should be for the event. You may think that you will turn into a laughing stock of everybody, or you may think that people will admire you for your knowledge and competence. Your stress reaction to the event will depend on your appraisal. If you have good experience of holding speeches, or make a positive appraisal, you may feel more positive emotions for it. This is your secondary appraisal. (As cited by Kasschau, 2000) The influence of appraisal on emotional experience can be illustrated with a study by Speisman and colleagues. Participants were shown a film about an initiation ceremony. The ceremony involved unpleasant genital surgery. Speisman and colleagues manipulated the appraisal of the surgery by showing the film with three different soundtracks. One soundtrack emphasized the pain and mutilation; another presented the participants as happy and deliberate. The third soundtrack emphasized an intellectual or detached interpretation of the ceremony. Observations and self reports showed that participants reacted more emotionally to the soundtrack that was more traumatic. (As cited by Crane, & Hannibal, 2009, p. 90). There are some methodological problems with the study. It is possible that participants reactions were primarily affected by the music, not that the music affected the appraisal of the situation. That aside, if we choose to interpret the findings according to appraisal theory, it can be hypothesized that the music affected the appraisal of the situation, which in turn affected the emotional reaction to it. Above all, the study strongly supports the view that situational factors can affect emotional responses. So how then do biological and cognitive factors interact in emotion? In order to answer this question, one must be aware of how biological and cognitive factors are considered to be related. Both biological and cognitive psychologists believe that mental processes are related to body and brain processes especially, and that the mind cannot exist independent from those processes. The predominant view on the mind and body relationship is one of interdependence; the mental structure and processes are similar to and have biological correlates. This isomorphic view explains the interaction of biology and cognition in the following manner; they are just different aspects of the same phenomenon. Where appraisal processes and biological processes interact for fear responses may be through Le Douxs long route, whose brain regions are thought to be related to memory, perception and higher order thinking. In order to accept this view of interaction, one also has to acknowledge that the brain is an information processor, an important principle within the cognitive perspective.

An information processor is a system that takes in information and transforms it into another form. From a cognitive view, the mind takes in information from the environment, processes it, and eventually produces a behavior; in this case an emotional response. Not everyone agrees with this assumption. Searle has argued that the brain as an information processor differs very much from a computer in the sense that a computer cannot form mental experiences. (Cole, 2009)This mind-body problem has neither been explained by the cognitive nor the biological perspective, and it will probably take a long time before it can be solved, if ever. This is also where the cognitive and biological approaches differ in their explanation of emotion. The biological approach emphasizes biological processes whereas the cognitive perspective assumes that intentions, memories and thoughts influence the emotional experience. Lazarus, for instance, believes that appraisal precedes body arousal and emotion. Despite their differences, there have been attempts to integrate the two perspectives. One example is the two factor theory of emotion. The Two Factor Theory of Emotion suggested that emotion arises from a combination of unexplained body arousal together with an appraisal for this arousal. Unfortunately, this theory has little empirical support. There is nonetheless support for a more limited effect of arousal on appraisal. Zillman and Bryant, for instance, found that participants who had just exercised responded more aggressively to provocation than participants who had not exercised. (As cited by Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Fredrickson, & Loftus, 2003, p. 392f). In another classic experiment by Dutton & Aaron (1974), male participants were observed to be more attracted to a female interviewer when approached on a narrow footbridge, a high anxiety situation. Hohmanns study on army veterans with spinal cord injuries has also shown that the intensity of experienced emotions depend on feedback from the sympathetic system to the brain (As cited by Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Fredrickson, & Loftus, 2003, p. 403). These studies suggest that arousal may have an affect on the intensity of the experienced emotion, but they do not support the Two Factor Theorys claim that emotion is contingent on arousal. Arousal and appraisal processes, therefore, can be assumed to interact, but they do not necessarily have to work together to form an emotional experience. After all, it is possible to experience emotion with a spinal cord injury, as it is possible to become angry or sexually aroused without fear or stress inducing stimuli. Assessing the evidence, biological and cognitive factors can be assumed to contribute to emotion. If we accept the information processing view of the brain, cognitive and biological factors interact in those brain regions where cognitive and perceptual processing is thought to be occurring, such as the thalamus, the hippocampus, the amygdala and the prefrontal lobe. As some research suggests an effectiveness of the cognitive approach for treating mood disorders, along with the fact that there seems to be two neurological pathways for emotional responses; one short route for automatic or non-conscious emotions, and one long route pertaining to a more conscious appraisal; it can be assumed that cognitive factors mainly influence conscious emotions and long term moods. Biological factors, on the other hand, seem to be the major influence on the primary emotional reaction to an external stimulus. This does not mean that biological factors cannot affect appraisal; on the contrary arousal can often affect the intensity of an experienced emotion.

The possibility that cognitions also can affect levels of arousal, which research studies on biofeedback and meditation suggest, paints a picture of an extremely intricate relationship between mind and body. What is more difficult to explain from a cognitive perspective is how conscious thoughts can influence emotional experiences. From the perspective of the mind as an information processor, it is less problematic to argue for the influence of unconscious or automatic processing on emotional responses. This is because the conscious experience of an event may be delayed, a hypothesis that finds support from studies by Le Doux and Libet, Wright, Feinstein, and Pearl (1979), among others. Although the mind is considered to be something non-physical, humans live and act in a physical universe, where our bodies are subjected to its natural laws. If there are appraisal processes influencing our emotional experience, we must therefore conjecture that these take place in the neuronal network, and also that they take time. Such surmise is howbeit controversial, as it presents a rather mechanical view on mental processes, and questions the existence of a conscious, free will. Since a scientific explanation for the transformation from an automatic, non-conscious process to conscious awareness has not yet been established, we can only speculate that the controlling biological and cognitive factors of emotion are primarily unconscious or automatic, and that the subjective emotional experience is a secondary process. As long as the hard problem of the mind-body relationship remains a conundrum, we cannot ascertain that conscious awareness does not affect the emotional response. Neither can we know if emotion is completely dependent on biological factors. Future research and improved neuroimaging technology will hopefully be able to shed more light on these issues.

References
Cole, D. (2009). The Chinese room argument. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ Crane, J., & Hannibal, J. (2009). IB Psychology course companion. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Dalgliesh, T. (2004). The emotional brain. Nature, 5, p. 582-589. Dutton, D., & Aaron, A.P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), p. 510-517. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American psychologist, 48(4), 376379. International baccalaureate organization. (2008). Theory of knowledge guide. Cardiff. James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), p. 188-205. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00264423%28188404%291%3A9%3A34%3C188%3AWIAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8

Jamison, J.B. (2010). Levels of analysis in psychology. Bedford, Freeman, & Worth (BFW): Gordonsville. Kasschau, R.A. (2000). Understanding psychology. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill: Jamestown. Libet, B., Wright, E.W., Feinstein, JR.B., & Pearl, D.K. (1979) Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious subjective experience. Brain, 102, 193-224. Retrieved from http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/lecturenotes/DGB02%20ADD/l ibet-et-al-1979.pdf Lyons, L.C., Woods, P.J. (1991). The efficacy of rational-emotive therapy: A quantitative review of the outcome research [Abstract]. Clinical psychology review, 11(4), 357-369. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(91)90113-9 Smith, E.E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B.L., & Loftus, G.R. (2003). Atkinsons & Hilgards introduction to psychology. 14th edition. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont