This blog is for students in Mr. Skoog's AP Psychology class at Lakota West High School. To contact Mr. Skoog please e-mail me at bryan.skoog@lakotaonline.com
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Reveiw on theories of Emotion
To give you one more presentation of the three theories on emotion, below is a lecture from another AP psych teacher, Mrs. Rice. It is short and to the point. Also attached are my notes on this unit.
Are they running studies still concerning the James-Lange and the Schachter-Singer theories? I'm wondering how it's possible to get very accurate feedback on the Schachter-Singer Theory because the theory entails the "subjective experience of emotion" and I don't see how that could be accurately measured or recorded with so many different personalities in the world.
Although at first it seems a bit confusing, I think the Two factor theory seems to make the most sense once you fully understand it. That both your physical and cognitive senses react at the same time to a stimulus to create an emotion. To me, the James-Lange Theory makes absolutely no sense. That your body just starts sweating and your heart racing for no reason and THEN you feel scared? I just dont see how that can be possible. The Cannon-Bard Theory at least makes some sense and seems in the right order.
I had a similar problem understanding James-Lange Theory until I reconsidered the experience of Mr Skoog kicking the door when we weren't expecting it; did he do that in your class? For me it was a good example because my body reacted (heart rate up, jolting upright, adrenaline going) before I had the chance to think "Dang Skoog you scary!" hahaha
I agree that the James-Lange Theory doesn't make much sense. How could your body react to a situation, such as increased heart rate and sweating, if you were being approached by a wild animal if you first were not aware that you were in danger? Your mind has to cognitively process your surroundings before your body can react to that emotion.
You have to consider the particular situation the person is in at the moment. Obviously a person's heart will not be racing if they were sitting at home. People are usually aware of the possible dangers of their surroundings before they actually go somewhere.
The theory I believe to be the most logical would have to be the two factory theory. It just makes sense that the physiological and the cognitive experience and the expressive behavior happen at the same time. For example if I were to see a hot girl walking up to me,my heart would beat faster which is caused by my emotion of nervousness.
The James-Lange theory of emotion is completely wrong. Theres no way that physical changes would come before what you feel, it just doesnt make sense. The two factor theory is probably the theory that makes the most sense saying that they happen at the same time.
To me, emotions (happy, sad, etc...) are initially just labels used to help understand and describe what is going on in the body. However, eventually the labels will hold some psychological value through association over time. As kids learn emotions, words such as happy, sad, and scared, hold little value to them because they don't know what word is associated with what feeling-- When babies cry, they could be expressing a wide variety of emotions. While kids grow up, they eventually start to realize and associate their physiological feelings with the proper word to describe the emotion. Through repeated exposure to emotions and describing the emotions, I believe that just the word "scared" may trigger physical responses for fear. It's kind of like how the bell made the dog salivated because the sound was associated with the meat. So by the time we are adults, our emotions are a combination of our actual physical reaction to the event and our associated reactions. I believe that our associated reactions to emotions help actors act. When an actor wants to be sad, they think of something sad that stimulates their conscious learned response that is associated with sadness.
To me the James-Lange theory seems to have a lot of holes. First of all your unconscious could be able to perceive a threat before your conscious anyway, so even if you weren't aware of yourself being fearful you could still have those feelings unconsciously before your heart rate rose and you started sweating. If you see a car coming quickly towards you your unconscious would just make you jump out of the way. Just because you didn't know in the forefront of your mind to be scared doesn't mean that it wasn't the feeling of being scared that got you out of the way of the car.
This video really helped me understand the theories of emotion. I disagree with some of the comments above though, the James-Lange Theory made perfect sense to me… bodily changes causes you to feel emotion. But I also can see why Walter Cannon and Phillip Bard questioned this by saying the physical reaction and emotion come at the same time following the stimulus. It took me a while to understand the two factor theory but once Mrs. Rice gave an example, I caught on.
I think its weird how the three theories all use the same characteristics, the order just varies. (Psychological activation, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience) I also agree that the James-Lange Theory doesn't make sense and is the complete opposite of what you would think. I understand and can relate to the two-factor theory that a physical reaction and labeling the emotion you are feeling creates the emotion. For example, when you almost get in a wreck your heart feels like it stops, you maybe begin to sweat, your hands are shaking, all of these are physical reactions. Combined with recognizing how scared you were, the terrified emotion is shown. I feel like this is the process I go through.
I also agree that the Jame-Lange theory is questionable. I don't understand how your body recats before your heart reacts. I would think that your heart reacts first and than your body. When you're nervous you don't start to sweat before your heart rate goes up, its the opposite. Are there test prove this?
I really like this video! I think she did a really great job explaining the different theories! It helped me a lot on the test! I suggest taking a look at it for the exam. The examples are also very useful and I found them relatable. Lucky22
I personally think either the Cannon-Bard or Two Factor Theory are the most plausible theories in understand how emotions are triggered. I think the Two Factor Theory is the most agreeable because if you think about how the body functions you can see that it is a combination of both cognitive and physical at the same time. An example is when you are hungry, your stomach sends hormones to the brain, making you then feel hungry. This shows that physical functions can trigger emotions just as they do others. An example of cognitive would be when you think about something depressing, your start to feel depressed. This shows it can be cognitive as well, so if you combine both cognitive and physical your result is the Two-Factor Theory, which is why I agree with it more than the other theories.
The Two Factor Theory truly does the best job of explaining emotion. Both conflicting theories have merits and drawbacks. It only seems logical that a combination of the two would be most accurate.
Pizza4life makes a good point. I think you have to be cognitively aware that something bad is going to happen before you can experience a certain emotion. Say you were walking around in the woods--texting on your cellphone--and there's a bear staring at you but you don't see it. if you aren't aware that the bear is starring at you with it's hungry eyes then you would keep going on with walking and texting. It's not until you look up and realize that the bear is starring at you at you experience fear. Therefore, the James-Lange Theory is very hard to understand.
To me, I don't really understand the James-Lange Theory only because I don't understand how you can react to an emotion before actually realizing WHY you're reacting. You would only react once you realized the situation you are in.
The way she describes the Schachter-Singer, it makes it seem like we consciously interpret our own emotions based of our physiological reactions to stimuli to form our cognitive label. What I dont understand is how that differs from the James-Lange theory which holds that we also interpret our arousal and connect it to the specific emotion.
Are they running studies still concerning the James-Lange and the Schachter-Singer theories? I'm wondering how it's possible to get very accurate feedback on the Schachter-Singer Theory because the theory entails the "subjective experience of emotion" and I don't see how that could be accurately measured or recorded with so many different personalities in the world.
ReplyDeleteAlthough at first it seems a bit confusing, I think the Two factor theory seems to make the most sense once you fully understand it. That both your physical and cognitive senses react at the same time to a stimulus to create an emotion. To me, the James-Lange Theory makes absolutely no sense. That your body just starts sweating and your heart racing for no reason and THEN you feel scared? I just dont see how that can be possible. The Cannon-Bard Theory at least makes some sense and seems in the right order.
ReplyDeleteI had a similar problem understanding James-Lange Theory until I reconsidered the experience of Mr Skoog kicking the door when we weren't expecting it; did he do that in your class? For me it was a good example because my body reacted (heart rate up, jolting upright, adrenaline going) before I had the chance to think "Dang Skoog you scary!" hahaha
DeleteI agree that the James-Lange Theory doesn't make much sense. How could your body react to a situation, such as increased heart rate and sweating, if you were being approached by a wild animal if you first were not aware that you were in danger? Your mind has to cognitively process your surroundings before your body can react to that emotion.
ReplyDeleteYou have to consider the particular situation the person is in at the moment. Obviously a person's heart will not be racing if they were sitting at home. People are usually aware of the possible dangers of their surroundings before they actually go somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe theory I believe to be the most logical would have to be the two factory theory. It just makes sense that the physiological and the cognitive experience and the expressive behavior happen at the same time. For example if I were to see a hot girl walking up to me,my heart would beat faster which is caused by my emotion of nervousness.
ReplyDeleteThe James-Lange theory of emotion is completely wrong. Theres no way that physical changes would come before what you feel, it just doesnt make sense. The two factor theory is probably the theory that makes the most sense saying that they happen at the same time.
ReplyDeleteTo me, emotions (happy, sad, etc...) are initially just labels used to help understand and describe what is going on in the body. However, eventually the labels will hold some psychological value through association over time. As kids learn emotions, words such as happy, sad, and scared, hold little value to them because they don't know what word is associated with what feeling-- When babies cry, they could be expressing a wide variety of emotions. While kids grow up, they eventually start to realize and associate their physiological feelings with the proper word to describe the emotion. Through repeated exposure to emotions and describing the emotions, I believe that just the word "scared" may trigger physical responses for fear. It's kind of like how the bell made the dog salivated because the sound was associated with the meat. So by the time we are adults, our emotions are a combination of our actual physical reaction to the event and our associated reactions. I believe that our associated reactions to emotions help actors act. When an actor wants to be sad, they think of something sad that stimulates their conscious learned response that is associated with sadness.
ReplyDeleteTo me the James-Lange theory seems to have a lot of holes. First of all your unconscious could be able to perceive a threat before your conscious anyway, so even if you weren't aware of yourself being fearful you could still have those feelings unconsciously before your heart rate rose and you started sweating. If you see a car coming quickly towards you your unconscious would just make you jump out of the way. Just because you didn't know in the forefront of your mind to be scared doesn't mean that it wasn't the feeling of being scared that got you out of the way of the car.
ReplyDeleteThis video really helped me understand the theories of emotion. I disagree with some of the comments above though, the James-Lange Theory made perfect sense to me… bodily changes causes you to feel emotion. But I also can see why Walter Cannon and Phillip Bard questioned this by saying the physical reaction and emotion come at the same time following the stimulus. It took me a while to understand the two factor theory but once Mrs. Rice gave an example, I caught on.
ReplyDeleteI think its weird how the three theories all use the same characteristics, the order just varies. (Psychological activation, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience) I also agree that the James-Lange Theory doesn't make sense and is the complete opposite of what you would think. I understand and can relate to the two-factor theory that a physical reaction and labeling the emotion you are feeling creates the emotion. For example, when you almost get in a wreck your heart feels like it stops, you maybe begin to sweat, your hands are shaking, all of these are physical reactions. Combined with recognizing how scared you were, the terrified emotion is shown. I feel like this is the process I go through.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Jame-Lange theory is questionable. I don't understand how your body recats before your heart reacts. I would think that your heart reacts first and than your body. When you're nervous you don't start to sweat before your heart rate goes up, its the opposite. Are there test prove this?
ReplyDeleteI really like this video! I think she did a really great job explaining the different theories! It helped me a lot on the test! I suggest taking a look at it for the exam. The examples are also very useful and I found them relatable.
ReplyDeleteLucky22
I personally think either the Cannon-Bard or Two Factor Theory are the most plausible theories in understand how emotions are triggered. I think the Two Factor Theory is the most agreeable because if you think about how the body functions you can see that it is a combination of both cognitive and physical at the same time. An example is when you are hungry, your stomach sends hormones to the brain, making you then feel hungry. This shows that physical functions can trigger emotions just as they do others. An example of cognitive would be when you think about something depressing, your start to feel depressed. This shows it can be cognitive as well, so if you combine both cognitive and physical your result is the Two-Factor Theory, which is why I agree with it more than the other theories.
ReplyDeleteThe Two Factor Theory truly does the best job of explaining emotion. Both conflicting theories have merits and drawbacks. It only seems logical that a combination of the two would be most accurate.
ReplyDeletePizza4life makes a good point. I think you have to be cognitively aware that something bad is going to happen before you can experience a certain emotion. Say you were walking around in the woods--texting on your cellphone--and there's a bear staring at you but you don't see it. if you aren't aware that the bear is starring at you with it's hungry eyes then you would keep going on with walking and texting. It's not until you look up and realize that the bear is starring at you at you experience fear. Therefore, the James-Lange Theory is very hard to understand.
ReplyDeleteTo me, I don't really understand the James-Lange Theory only because I don't understand how you can react to an emotion before actually realizing WHY you're reacting. You would only react once you realized the situation you are in.
ReplyDeleteThe way she describes the Schachter-Singer, it makes it seem like we consciously interpret our own emotions based of our physiological reactions to stimuli to form our cognitive label. What I dont understand is how that differs from the James-Lange theory which holds that we also interpret our arousal and connect it to the specific emotion.
ReplyDelete