AFFECT AND COGNITION:

CORRELATION

Abstract
THIS ASSIGNMENT CONTAINS THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT COGNITION AND AFFECT
MEANS. FURTHER IT STATES THE RELATIONSHIP BOTH THESE ASPECTS OF HUMAN SHARE
TOGETHER. THIS PAPER SUGGESTS HOW THESE TWO TERMS ARE INTERRELATED TO EACH
OTHER.

YAMINI JOHRI
yamini.johri@s.amity.edu
 Social Psychology: Relationship between Affect and Cognition

INTRODUCTION:
Social psychology is based on the ABCs of affect, behaviour, and cognition. In order to
effectively maintain and enhance our own lives through successful interaction with others, we
rely on these three basics and interrelated human capacities:
1) Affect
2) Behaviour
3) Cognition
These three aspects directly reflect the idea in our definition of social psychology—the study
of the feelings, behaviours, and thoughts of individuals in the social situation. Although we
will frequently discuss each of the capacities separately, keep in mind that all three work
together to produce human experience. 

Social Cognition: Thinking and Learning about Others

Humans are highly intelligent, and they use cognition in every part of their social
lives. Psychologists refer to cognition as the mental activity of processing information and
using that information in judgment. Thus, Social cognition is cognition that relates to social
activities and that helps us understand and predict the behaviour of ourselves and others.
The distinguishing brain feature in mammals, including humans, is the more recently
evolved cerebral cortex—the part of the brain that is involved in thinking. Over time, people
develop a set of social knowledge that contains information about the self, other people,
social relationships, and social groups. Two types of knowledge are particularly important in
social psychology: schemas and attitudes.
Schemas
Social psychologists define schemas as “mental frameworks that helps us to organise social
information, and that guide our actions and the processing of information relevant to those
contexts. A schema is a knowledge representation that includes information about a person
or group.
Since your personal experience in such situations is probably like that of others in your
culture, everyone in a given society will tend to share many basic schemas. Once schemas are
formed, they play a role in determining what we notice about the social world, what
information we remember, and how we use and interpret such information.
Attitudes
  An  attitude  is a knowledge representation that includes primarily our liking or disliking of a
person, thing, or group.
Both schemas and attitudes allow us to judge quickly and without much thought whether
someone or something we encounter is good or bad, helpful, or hurtful, to be sought out or
avoided. Thus, schemas and attitudes have an important influence on our social information
processing and social behaviour.
Social cognition involves the active interpretation of events. As a result, different people may
draw different conclusions about the same events. For instance, the 12 members of a jury
who are deliberating about the outcome in a trial have all heard the same evidence, but each
juror’s own schemas and attitudes may lead him or her to interpret the evidence differently. 
 The fact that different people interpret the same events differently makes life interesting, but
it can sometimes lead to disagreement and conflict. Social psychologists study how people
interpret and understand their worlds and, particularly, how they make judgments about the
causes of other people’s behaviour.

Social Affect: Feelings about Ourselves and Others

Affect: refers to the feelings we experience as a part of our day-to-day life. With every
passing moment, we witness ourselves going through a variety of mood i.e., happy, sad,
angry, excited, etc. Affect, if not keep in check, can be harmful. Regulation of affect is an
import aspect for better experience in life, Affect can also lead us to engage in behaviours
that are appropriate to our perceptions of a given situation.
We experience affect in two forms:
a) Moods
b) Emotions
Moods
Refers to the “positive” or “negative” feelings that are in the background of our everyday
experience. When we are in a good mood, our thought processes open up and we are more
likely to approach others. We are more friendly and helpful to others when we are in a good
mood than when we are in a bad mood, and we may think more creatively (De Dreu, Baas, &
Nijstad, 2008).  On the other hand, when we are in a bad mood, we are more likely to prefer
to remain by ourselves rather than interact with others, and our creativity suffers.
Emotions
are brief, but often intense, mental, and physiological feeling states. In comparison with
moods, emotions are shorter lived, stronger, and more specific forms of affect. Emotions are
caused by specific events, and they are accompanied by high levels of arousal. Whereas we
experience moods in normal, everyday situations, we experience emotions only when things
are out of the ordinary or unusual. Emotions serve an adaptive role in helping us guide our
social behaviours. Just as we run from a snake because the snake elicits fear, we may try to
make amends with other people when we feel guilty
Note: Affect influences several aspects of cognition and cognition in turn influences
several aspects of affect. Not all books differentiate between affect and emotion. Most of
them use affect/emotion interchangeably. Mood is somewhat more persistent, whereas
emotion is a short-term experience.
Theories of emotions
James Lange Theory (1890)
One of the earliest theories of emotion that talks about ‘how we experience emotions.
James Lange theory proposes that “you will notice your physical reactions and conclude that
you feel certain emotions (my heart is beating faster than usual at the time of presentation,
that means I’m nervous),
The theory also contends that our “emotional experience results from our perception of shift
in bodily state”, we become nervous when we notice any physiological reactions such as
excess sweating, palpitations, and so on.
Criticism
One major criticism of this theory was “neither James nor Lange, based their idea on
anything remotely resembled controlled experiments. Instead, the theory was a result of
introspection.” According to both, a person must go through physiological experiences to
gain emotional experience. Many researchers however, discovered that “people who have
been through partial paralysis or muscle paralysis, were able to feel happy, sad, angry and
what not,
Cannon-Bard theory (1927)
The theory was developed in 1927 by Walter B. Cannon and his graduate student, Philip
Bard. It was established as an alternative to the James-Lange theory of emotion. This theory
states that feelings are the result of physical reactions to a stimulating event.
In this theory Cannon along with Bard concluded in this theory that “body arousal and
emotional experience occur simultaneously. The Cannon-Bard theory argues that we
experience physiological arousal and emotional at the same time but gives no attention to the
role of thoughts or outward behaviour. Cannon-Bard proposes that both reactions originate
simultaneously in thalamus. This is a small brain structure responsible for receiving sensory
information. It relays it to the appropriate area of the brain for processing.
When a triggering event occurs, the thalamus might send signals to the amygdala.
The amygdala is responsible for processing strong emotions, such as fear, pleasure, or anger.
It might also send signals to the cerebral cortex, which controls conscious thought. Signals
sent from the thalamus to the autonomic nervous system and skeletal muscles control
physical reactions. These include sweating, shaking, or tense muscles. Sometimes the
Cannon-Bard theory is referred to as the thalamic theory of emotion.
Schachter- Singer Two Factor Theory (1962)
In an experiment held in the year 1962, Schachter and singer put their theory to the test.
The Schachter-Singer theory of emotion suggests that physical reactions occur first but can
be similar for different feelings. This is also called the two-factor theory. Like James-Lange,
this theory suggest that physical sensations must be experienced before they can be identified
as a particular emotion.
The Two-Factor Theory
The two-factor theory of emotion focuses on the interaction between physical arousal and
how we cognitively label that arousal. In other words, simply feeling arousal is not enough;
we also must identify the arousal to feel the emotion.
The process begins with the stimulus (the strange man), which is followed by the physical
arousal (rapid heartbeat and trembling). Added to this is the cognitive label (associating the
physical reactions to fear), which is immediately followed by the conscious experience of the
emotion (fear). The immediate environment plays an important role in how physical
responses are identified and labelled. In the example above, the dark, lonely setting and the
sudden presence of an ominous stranger contributes to the identification of the emotion as
fear.
Criticism
In replications by Marshall and Zimbardo, the researchers found that participants were no
more likely to act euphoric when exposed to a euphoric confederate than when they were
exposed to a neutral confederate. In another study by Maslach, hypnotic suggestion was used
to induce arousal rather than injecting epinephrine.
The results suggested that unexplained physical arousal was more likely to generate negative
emotions no matter which type of confederate condition they were exposed to.
Schachter and Singer’s Experiment

In a 1962 experiment, Schachter and Singer put their theory to the test. A group of 184 male
participants was injected with epinephrine, a hormone that produces arousal including
increased heartbeat, trembling, and rapid breathing. All the participants were told that they
were being injected with a new drug to test their eyesight. However, one group of participants
was informed of the possible side-effects that the injection might cause while the other group
of participants was not. Participants were then placed in a room with another participant who
was a confederate in the experiment. The confederate either acted in one of two ways:
euphoric or angry. Participants who had not been informed about the effects of the injection
were more likely to feel either happier or angrier than those who had been informed. Those
who were in a room with the euphoric confederate were more likely to interpret the side
effects of the drug as happiness, while those exposed to the angry confederate were more
likely to interpret their feelings as anger.

Schacter and Singer had hypothesized that if people experienced an emotion for which they
had no explanation, they would then label these feelings using their feelings at the moment.
The results of the experiment suggested that participants who had no explanation for their
feelings were more likely to be susceptible to the emotional influences of the confederate.
Cognitive Appraisal Theory

Cognition Appraisal is an assessment of an emotional situation wherein a person evaluates

how the events will affect them, interprets the various aspects of the event, and arrives at a
response based on that interpretation.

The appraisal theory of emotion proposes that emotions are extracted from our
“appraisals” (i.e., our evaluations, interpretations, and explanations) of events. These
appraisals lead to different specific reactions in different people. Psychologist Magda
Arnold made early advancements in appraisal theory, proposing that an initial appraisal
begins the emotional sequence by arousing both the appropriate physiological reactions
and the emotional experience itself. In 1991, psychologist Richard Lazarus built on
appraisal theory to develop cognitive -mediational theory. This theory still asserts that our
emotions are determined by our appraisal of the stimulus, but it suggests that immediate,
unconscious appraisals mediate between the stimulus and the emotional response.
Lazarus also distinguished between primary appraisal, which seeks to establish the
significance or meaning of an event, and secondary appraisal, which assesses the ability
of the individual to cope with the consequences of the event.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AFFECT AND COGNITION

Affect and cognition: How feelings shape thoughts and thought shapes feelings

There is a continuous and complex interplay between ‘Affect’- our current moods and
emotions, and ‘Cognition’- various aspects of the ways in which we think, process, store,
remember, and use information (Forgas, 2000; Isen & Labroo, 2003). Our emotions and
mood strongly influence several aspects of cognition, and cognition in turn, exerts strong
effects on our emotions and mood (Baron, 2008; McDonald & Hirt, 1997).

The Influence of Affect and Cognition

Our current mood can influence our perception of the world around us. When a person has a
good mood, He tends to perceive almost every situation, other people, ideas in a positive
manner (Blanchette & Richards,2010). Indeed, this effect is so strong and pervasive that we
are even more likely to judge statements as true if we encounter them while in a positive
mood than if we read or hear them while in a neutral or negative mood.
Example: Zen Kaons’ “if a placebo has an effect, is it any less real than the real thing?” – to
participants, those in positive mood consistently reported greater understanding had been
derived from the stimuli, particularly among participants that had first reported that they tend
to use Heuristics when making judgements (“I rely on my intuitive impressions’). For
example, their impact on job interviews- interviewer may meet many people for the first time.
Body of evidence indicates that even experienced interviewer can not avoid being influenced
by their current moods: they assign higher ratings to the people when in good mood than
when they are in a bad mood (e.g., Baron, 1993a. Robbin & DeNisi, 1994).
Another way in which affect influences cognition involves its impact on memory. Two
different, but related kind of effects seems to happen, one is known as “Mood Congruence
Effects”: states that “current mood strongly determines which information in a given
situation is noticed and entered into memory. Current moods serve as a kind of filter,
permitting primarily information consistent with these moods to enter long-term storage.
Second, affect also influence what specific information is retrieved from memory, known as
Mood Dependent Memory: individuals are more likely to remember information they
acquired in the past while in a similar mood than information they acquired while in a
different mood. Current moods, serve as a kind of ‘retrieval cue’, prompting recall of
information consistent with these moods. Our current mood also influences another important
component of cognition: creativity. A recent meta-analysis combining all the studies
investigating the relationship between mood & creativity (Bass, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008)
indicates that, positive moods facilitate creativity most when they are relatively high in
arousal rather than low in arousal.
Example: “you” are in a good mood and a certain person comes to your mind, the one you
met while in similar mood. Here your current mood serves as trigger memories of
information you acquired when you were in a similar mood in the past. Hence, both Mood
Congruence and Mood Dependent Memory strongly influences the information we store.
A third way in which affect influences cognition involves the tendency to engage in Heuristic
processing, thinking that relies on mental “shortcuts” and knowledge acquired through
experience. Research findings indicate that people experiencing positive affect are more
likely than people experiencing negative affect to engage in heuristic thoughts (Mackie &
worth, 1989; Park & Banaji, 2000).
Finally, our current mood often influences our interpretations of the motives behind people’s
behaviour. Positive affect tends to encourage attributions of positive motives, while negative
affect tends to encourage negative motives (Forgas, 2000).
The Influence of Cognition on Affect
Most research on the relationship between Affect and Cognition has focused on how feelins
influence thought. There is also strong evidence for the reverse: the impact of cognition on
Affect. One aspect of this relationship is described in what is known as the “Two-Factor
Theory” of emotion (Schachter,1964).
A second way in which cognition can influence emotions is by activating schemas containing
a strong affective component. For example: if we categorize people belonging to different
groups than ours, we may experience a different emotional response than if we categorized
those people as our own group. These results indicates that how we think about others- and
who we think those others are- tells us how we feel about such people, and whether we “feel”
their pain or not.
Third way in which our thoughts can influence our affective states involves your efforts to
regulate our own emotions and feelings.
Cognition and the regulation of Affective States
Negative events and outcomes are an unavoidable part of one’s life, learning to cope with the
negative feelings these events generate is crucial for personal adjustment for good social
relationship with others.
We use our thoughts to regulate our feelings. The most important technique we use for
regulating our mood and emotions are ones involving Cognitive Mechanism. When we feel
“down” or ‘distressed”, we often engage in activities that might be bad for us in a long run,
but they make us feel better temporarily (over-indulgence in sugar, substance use, misuse,
abuse). In the past it was assumed that people engage in such actions because the emotional
distress they are experiences reduces either their capacity or motivation to control their
impulses to do things that are enjoyable but potentially bad for them. However, Tice et al.,
(2000) argue that cognitive factors in fact play a role in such behaviour; we yield to such
temptations because it helps us deal with strong negative feelings.
To test this prediction, Tice et al. (2000) conducted a study in which participants were first
put in a good or a bad mood (by reading stories). He predicted that people in a bad mood
would procrastinate more, but only when they believed doing so would enhance their moods,
and the results offered clear support for the predictions. These findings indicate that the
tendency to yield to temptation is a conscious choice, not a simple lapse in the ability to
control our own impulses.

Affect and cognition: Two separate entities

Recent findings using neuroscience techniques (scanning human brains as individuals
perform various activities) indicate that two distinct systems for processing social
information may exist within the human brain (e.g., Cohen, 2005). One system is concerned
with what might be termed “reason”- logical thought- whereas the other deals primarily with
affect or emotion.
Example: a sum of 10 rupees is given to two kids ana are asked to divide it between them.
One kid can suggest how the sum is to be divided and the other one can deny or accept the
offer. Division provides the second person with positive payoff, suggests that acceptance of
division offered is the most rational action.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the brains of people performing this task reveal
that when they receive offers, they view as unfair, brain regions related both to reasoning and
to emotion are active.
Additional research indicates that the neural system for emotion tends to be impulsive,
preferring immediate rewards, whereas the system for reason is more forward-looking and
accepting of delays that ultimately yield larger rewards. The immediate option, however,
induces greater activity in the emotion related areas.
Evidence from the research using modern techniques for scanning brain activity during
cognitive processes suggest that affect plays a fundamental role in human thought. Certain
aspects of our thoughts can also influence our feelings. Affect and cognition are not a one-
way street; they are divided highway, with the potential of one influencing the other.