Influence of Emotion and Cognition on Decision-Making and Epidemiological Hypotheses

Abstract

Common cognitive processes include the influence of emotion and the affects of ambiguous stimuli. Ambiguous stimuli are individualistic and dependent on individual and experience. Participants at universities were asked to act as epidemiologists in 2 test groups presented with consistent and ambiguous stimuli. Coupled with randomization and context cues in some cases, participants were able to hypothesize disease causation based inadvertently on emotional and intentionally on cognitive processes developed during stimulation as well as context cues. Results indicated strong emotional responses and effective memory retention in response to context clues and previously learned experiences, whether or not experiences resulted in generalization and extinction. Ensuing evidence and discussions will reinforce the theoretical presuppositions of emotional and cognitive processes in decision-making. Results prove an affective study and reinforce the strength of emotion and cognition on decision-making.

Introduction

We have learned that extinction, or the loss of a particular performance or known knowledge, happens when a signal is no longer contiguous with a reinforced stimulus (Bouton 2002). However, simply because an ‘extinction’ of stimuli occurs does not mean that the initially learned information is destroyed; rather, it is re-created and/or acquires a new or additional meaning (Bouton 2002). Additionally, ambiguous stimuli, or stimuli that can have more than one meaning for said participants, has meaning dependent on a particular or current context. Therefore, when participants in one well-executed study were asked to act as epidemiologists while hypothesizing determinants for disease causation can interpret ambiguous stimuli based on previously learned experiences, subsequently skewing results towards one meaning over another. Therefore, when extinction occurs for one individual under observation the study and does not for another individual, participants in the study observing a simulated situation will make interpretations not only based on previously learned information but also on emotional responses of ambiguous stimuli.

In this experiment participants were given different names, photos and background colors on webpages to aid in determining whether or not a particular meal (Ie. Meals M01 and M02 at restaurants A and B in both control and ambiguous test groups) would be associated with a following disease. It is well known that names, images and background colors evoke particular emotional responses (Phelps, Sharot, 2008, Valdez, 1994). Additionally, scholars have argued that emotions do increase memory accuracy in a subjective sense (ie. Ambiguous stimuli meant to evoke an emotional response in potentially more than 1 way) but may skew results while context clues for neutral stimuli might be more important and stimulate more accurate results. This test proves both of these points. However, it is clear, as will be discussed later, that the p values of difference were more significant within the ambiguous test group due to emotional responsiveness than for the consistent test group, therefore allowing significant credence for the credibility of the study. 

Other studies regarding emotion and working memory also come into play. Since both tests (causal and memory ratings test described in methodology) are prediction tests of memory, the emotional decision making in hypothesizing must be highlighted. The somatic marker test that Bechara, Damasio and Damasio discuss sheds light on how neuro-anatomical and cognitive frameworks affect decision making via processes of emotion (2000). Therefore, it becomes clear that there are specific cognitive functions that caused participants in the ambiguous test group to interpret tests of memory by directly correlating emotional responses whether it was to their knowledge or not, pointing to a clear function of response. 

Ensuing results discussed include the memory test and the causal test. Causal reasoning is one of the most highly credible, basic and important cognitive processes that influence all higher learning activities such as problem solving and understanding (Jonassen, Ionas 2008). Therefore, the causal test in epidemiological reasoning is important to discuss in the results section when determining the effectiveness and the clear correlations of the study with regards to disease correlation, emotional response, and cognitive reasoning. However, it has also been argued that a stimulus-oriented approach to memory could have equally credible theoretical credence when it comes to research relating to predictions. While memory results are significant and will also be highlighted, I contend that the causal results are highly functional when lending credence to my argument that emotion and cognition led to deductive reasoning when participants were asked to hypothesize the cause of disease. 

Below results of the study are discussed and will be indicative of obvious emotional and cognitive responses when hypothesizing disease causation in the ambiguous test group instead of the consistent test group.

Results Table

(Table 1 omitted for preview. Available via download)

Discussion of Results

First, I will discuss results from the consistent group test. In general mean ratings for the consistent group were fairly consistent across the board, ranging between 5.7 and 6.8 for Meals M01 and M02 causing a disease in both Restaurants A and B. The p values were high enough not to determine a correlation. Context cues from the training session for participants in the consistent group resulted in a 48% accuracy rate, which is almost half accuracy for Meal M01 in restaurant A causing a disease. Participants also scored at a level of 48% accuracy when hypothesizing whether meal M02 from restaurant B would cause a disease. Context cues for restaurant A resulted in a 55% accuracy when hypothesizing whether meal M02 would cause a disease at restaurant A and a 48% accuracy rate when hypothesizing whether or not a meal would cause a disease in restaurant 2. Therefore, context cues for meal M02 from restaurant A in the consistent group caused the strongest emotional and cognitive response from participants when hypothesizing whether or not a meal would cause a disease, alluding to the power of memory and association. These results were intentional in the consistent group.

Second, results from the ambiguous group must be discussed. Now the discussion must be turned to the relevant p values exhibited in Table 1. Causal ratings, with p values below .05, represent direct correlations between meals and restaurants. Subsequently, context cues for restaurant A represented a 62% accuracy rate when guessing whether or not Meal M01 would cause a disease from restaurant A and only a 30% accuracy rate when guessing whether or not Meal M01 would cause a disease from restaurant B. Additionally, Meal M02 resulted in a 60% accuracy rating when guessing whether or not meal M02 would cause a disease from restaurant A and only a 26% accuracy rate when guessing whether or not the meal would cause a disease from restaurant B. Clearly results in the ambiguous group were heavily skewed towards meal M01 at restaurant A and meal M02 from restaurant B, pointing to a clear association of emotional and cognitive reactions from participants. 

Therefore, we can deduct that participants were much more sensitive to context in the ‘causal’ task in the ambiguous condition than in the consistent condition. When one stimulus is ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation, participants are likely to treat the ambiguous stimuli as context dependent. The causal test taps explicit, or eyewitness memory, while the ambiguous test, innately related to more than 1 interpretation, taps implicit memory of context.

As previously discussed, extinction does not imply the erasure of learned experience but it can imply a re-learning or a re-working of experience. Hence, Mike has reworked his hypothesis of his association with sushi at the Manning food court. He has a re-worked experience with chicken although it made him sick at the Westfield food court along with sushi. Since he does not get sick eating chicken at Manning, he has re-worked his subsequent association with sushi at Manning. In contrast, Lisa gets sick from both foods at Westfield and generalizes that those same foods at Manning will also make her sick and remain dangerous, disease-ridden foods in general. Extinction and generalization are not in contrast with one another, but emotional responses and the re-working of assumptions is dependent on the person, the experience, images and emotional responses. 

The test was designed in this way to allow for randomization and accuracy of results. The test succeeded in concluding the ambiguous stimuli caused greater responses and higher accuracy levels when students were required to guess disease causation in this student-conducted study. They hypothesized well when they interpreted ambiguous stimuli in the causal test for both Mike and Lisa.

References

Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30-40.

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295-307.

Bouton, M. E. (2002). Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: Sources of relapse after behavioral extinction. Biological Psychiatry, 52(10), 976-986.

Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). Designing effective supports for causal reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 287-308.

Madden, T. J., Hewett, K., & Roth, M. S. (2000). Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences. Journal of International Marketing, 8(4), 90-107.

Phelps, E. A., & Sharot, T. (2008). How (and Why) Emotion Enhances the Subjective Sense of Recollection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 147-152.

Sekuler, R., & Kahana, M. J. (2007). A Stimulus-Oriented Approach to Memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 305-310.

Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 394-409