James Lange vs SS theory of emotion

[tvbbnumber41]

I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the two. I was under the assumption they are basically the same thing, however, with the only difference being that the James Langer theory implies that the emotional response is fixed according to the physiological response, while the SS theory implies that based on the condition the physiological response is open to interpretation. But based on this question I've encountered I am confused on how to differentiated from choices A and B.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rabbott1971]

EK emphasizes the "Schachter two-factor" as the main difference between the two. Physiological arousal is the first step, like James-Lange. But then there are also situational cues (the second factor) that help us sort the emotion, instead of strictly classifying it based on the physio response. EK also says that S-S "recognizes higher level thinking."

So this would be my best attempt at summarizing the three theories of emotion.

J-L stimulus ----> physio response -----> recognition and interpretation of physio response ----> emotion
C-B stimulus ----> physio response and emotion occur together
S-S stimulus ----> physio response ----> cognitive appraisal of situational cues ----> emotion

To your comment, I think you are on track. EK says the C-B theory critiqued J-L's monolithic treatment of physio responses that can be interpreted in various ways. Rapid heartbeat could be fear, excitement, anger.

In your example, A depicts stimulus ----> physio response ----> cognitive appraisal of the reason for the physio response ----> emotion.
Answer B depicts stimulus ----> physio response ----> emotion

The language to key on is "his body cues and behavior lead him to understand he is in a scary situation and he feels afraid." This is happening without cognitive appraisal of situational cues; the physiological response is dictating the emotion felt. That would be a J-L response, and in fact it plays into the critique of J-L because really, the dog running out of the house is not a life-threatening situation. It isn't even particularly "scary," so the physio response is almost tricking the dog owner.

These are kind of tough, but I hope this helps.

 

[tvbbnumber41]

EK emphasizes the "Schachter two-factor" as the main difference between the two. Physiological arousal is the first step, like James-Lange. But then there are also situational cues (the second factor) that help us sort the emotion, instead of strictly classifying it based on the physio response. EK also says that S-S "recognizes higher level thinking."

So this would be my best attempt at summarizing the three theories of emotion.

J-L stimulus ----> physio response -----> recognition and interpretation of physio response ----> emotion
C-B stimulus ----> physio response and emotion occur together
S-S stimulus ----> physio response ----> cognitive appraisal of situational cues ----> emotion

To your comment, I think you are on track. EK says the C-B theory critiqued J-L's monolithic treatment of physio responses that can be interpreted in various ways. Rapid heartbeat could be fear, excitement, anger.

In your example, A depicts stimulus ----> physio response ----> cognitive appraisal of the reason for the physio response ----> emotion.
Answer B depicts stimulus ----> physio response ----> emotion

The language to key on is "his body cues and behavior lead him to understand he is in a scary situation and he feels afraid." This is happening without cognitive appraisal of situational cues; the physiological response is dictating the emotion felt. That would be a J-L response, and in fact it plays into the critique of J-L because really, the dog running out of the house is not a life-threatening situation. It isn't even particularly "scary," so the physio response is almost tricking the dog owner.

These are kind of tough, but I hope this helps.

This helped so much. I think it's the wording that gets me a lot of times. I noticed this to be ongoing issue here and there especially for third party exams, however, I haven't seen as much on the AAMC. Thanks for the elaborate response!