What Does the Brain Tell Us About Processing Emotional Messages?
Research in both psychology and communications has constantly suggested that
people process emotional stimuli differently than neutral (i.e., non-emotional) stimuli.
In general, it has been suggested that compared to neutral stimuli, people pay more
attention to emotional messages and later remember them better. However, the research
on this topic has taken various theoretical approaches of emotions. One view claims that
there are several distinct emotions, each of which may have different effects, whereas
another view differentiates emotions by the two underlying dimensions of arousal and
pleasure (valence) and theorizes that the effects change along these dimensions.
Attention and memory have been measured in various ways. Attention has been
measured (or indexed) using direct or indirect methods such as reaction time (RT),
preload technique, heart rate and self-report items. Memory has been frequently defined
as recognition or recall of the information presented through the emotional stimuli.
Recently, different approaches have been taken to study emotion. Theoretical
and methodological advances made in areas such as psychophysiology and cognitive
neuroscience have expanded research on emotion and enormously contributed to the
knowledge regarding this topic. The underlying assumption is that human emotion as
other psychological processes is embodied phenomenon (i.e., having a physical
substrate). It has multiple faces, that is, multiple representations. It is simultaneously
expressed as emotional language (emotional communication and evaluative reports),
physiological reactions and overt acts (Bradley & Lang, 2000). Thus, any of them can
provide insights regarding the phenomena although none of those can offer a complete
picture of the phenomena.
Emotion has long been measured using a self-report method. The assumption is
that emotion is something people are consciously aware of. However, Kipnis (1997)
argued that there are dynamic mental processes that cannot be directly observed or
measured. Many others have begun to question the underlying assumption that changes
in consciousness are sufficient to explain human experiences and behavior. They
(psychophysiologists and cognitive neuroscientists) view consciousness as “an
important but narrow band of influences instantiated in brain processes and relevant to
the governance of human experience and behavior” (Cacioppo, Tassinary, & Berntson,
2000, p. 4). All these indicate that people may not be always aware of their emotions,
thus that they may not accurately express their emotions verbally. In the most often
cited anecdote, Claparede (1911, cited in Tulving, 1983) painfully pricked the hand of
an amnesic patient while shaking her hand. The patient refused to shake his hand when
Page 1 of 21 
Convention