Maria S. Kapitsa
Irina V. Blinnikova
Anna B. Leonova
Moscow State Lomonosov University
The effects of emotional states on characteristics of
cognitive functioning were frequently investigated in
psychological and psychophysiological studies
(Martin, Clore, 2001).
At the beginning these effects were considered to be
disorganizing (Easterbrook, 1959). Later certain specific
effects of emotions were described for different modes
of information processing and changing cognitive
strategies.


It was shown that emotional states exerted effects on
working memory, and that the direction of these effects
depends on whether pleasant or unpleasant emotions
were experienced (Gray, 2001).
Besides it was found that the more distorted processes
of short-term memorizing are, the stronger the emotive
impact is. They depend on the individual differences, as
well (Gray, Braver, Raichle, 2002).

To reveal subgroups differing in stress resistance
(Leonova, 2001; 2004);

To analyze cognitive performance under
emotionally neutral and emotionally tense
conditions.
Participants: 28 subjects: 12 f and 16 m, 17-29 years old
Cognitive task: The Sternberg Item Recognition Task
(differentiation of the types of memory search strategies)
Experimental situations:
A. “Ordinary” - routine execution of the Recognition
Task with increasing memory load (10 min)
B. “Emotional Stress” – execution of the Recognition Task
after negative feedback about the quality of performance (10
min)
Pre-Test
Personality
Trait
estimation
Test 1
Background
states of
subjects
estimation
Cognitive
Task
Performance
Emotional
Impact
(Negative
Feedback)
Cognitive
Task
Performance
Test 2
Stress
reactions of
subjects
(State
changes)



Six subscales to test PERSONALITY TRAITS and emotional
disposition:Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait Anger Inventory,
Trait Depression Inventory, Burnout Self-Test, Type A
Behavior Questionnaire, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Test;
Five subscales to test CURRENT EMOTIONAL STATES: State
Anxiety Inventory, State Anger Inventory, State Depression
Inventory, Well-being Scale, Differential Emotions Scale;
PHYSIOLOGICAL INDICATORS: heart rate, mode and
amplitude of RR interval mode, performance of the main
spectral components of the heart rate, parameters of
sympathetic and parasympathetic links and the integral index
of vegetative regulation
The analysis of personality traits and shifts in
psychological and physiological indicators allows
division of all the subjects into two subgroups
considerably contrasting in the levels of stress
resistance
Lower
stress resistance
(11 subjects)
Higher
stress resistance
(17 subjects)
Subgroup 1
Indices
Subgroup 2
Significance
mean

mean

Z
p
Trait Anxiety
48.86
6.33
37.18
3.80
-3.348
< 0.001
Trait Anger
34.00
3.96
30.82
5.33
-1.343
-

Anger-Control
17.29
3.25
12.29
2.44
-3.142
< 0.001

Anger-Expression
16.7
3.99
18.53
4.29
-0.734
-
Trait Depression
23.00
2.94
16.71
2.87
-3.327
< 0.001

T-Euthymia
12.7
1.50
16.06
1.39
-3.509
< 0.001

T-Disthymia
10.7
3.09
7.77
1.79
-2.223
< 0.05
Chronic Fatigue
26.4
8.98
13.18
6.43
-3.155
< 0.001
Type A Behavior
Burnout
23.57
3.41
18.06
4.70
-2.695
< 0.01
Emotional exhaustion
Depersonalization
Reduced sense of personal
accomplishment
26.71
12.43
15.43
5.82
5.86
6.75
5.82
10.35
15.53
5.82
3.37
4.45
-2.897
-0.989
-0.287
< 0.01
-
Indices
Well-being
State Anxiety
State Anger
Feeling Angry
Expr. Anger Verbally
Expr. Anger Physically
State Depression
S-Euthymia
S-Disthymia
Differential Emotion
Scale:
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Anxiety-Depression
experience
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
(11 ss)
(17 ss)
Significance
mean

mean

Z
P
52.86
41.00
18.43
5.86
6.00
6.57
17.71
14.14
6.86
5.70
8.56
2.76
1.22
1.29
2.23
3.50
2.85
2.34
51.59
35.47
15.59
5.24
5.24
5.12
15.82
14.94
5.77
7.45
4.95
1.73
0.97
0.75
0.33
2.98
1.98
2.02
-0.96
-1.814
-3.144
-2.005
-1.701
-2.430
-1.285
-0.388
-1.591
<0.01
< 0.01
< 0.1
-
24.86
18.71
19.86
3.98
7.61
8.36
25.47
13.53
12.82
5.27
2.60
4.99
-0.575
-2.088
-1.990
< 0.05
< 0.05
Indices
Well-being
State Anxiety
State Anger
Feeling Angry
Expr. Anger Verbally
Expr. Anger Physically
State Depression
S-Euthymia
S-Disthymia
Differential Emotion
Scale:
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Anxiety-Depression
experience
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
(11 ss)
(17 ss)
Significance
mean

mean

Z
P
46.43
44.00
19.29
7.00
5.86
9.14
6.48
3.73
1.41
1.21
46.29
40.41
16.65
5.94
5.53
7.46
6.76
2.91
1.60
1.33
-0.095
-1.345
-2.525
-1.908
-1.086
< 0.05
< 0.1
-
6.43
18.86
13.29
7.14
2.94
4.41
3.82
1.95
5.18
17.41
13.71
6.12
0.39
2.98
2.26
1.45
-1.388
-0.575
-0.224
-1.223
-
24.00
18.57
19.43
5.60
7.48
6.45
23.06
13.82
12.59
4.52
3.01
4.45
-0.415
-2.526
-2.269
< 0.05
< 0.05
H
А
A
1000 ms
200 + 500 ms
N=3
1000 ms


Subjects were told that their results were
considerably worse than standard either in the
number of mistakes or in the reaction speed;
Subjects were asked to carry out the second
series of the test (in a simplified version) to
“reestablish credit” and to achieve higher score.
State Anger
State Anxiety
46
State Depression
24
24
22
22
20
20
18
18
16
16
34
32
14
14
12
12
30
10
44
42
40
38
36
1 Ass
10
1 Ass
2 Ass
subgroup 1
subgroup 2
subgroup 1
2 Ass
subgroup 2
Positive emotions
subgroup 1
Negative emotions
30
20
28
18
26
16
24
14
22
12
20
1 Ass
10
1 Ass
subgroup 1
2 Ass
subgroup 2
1 Ass
subgroup 1
2 Ass
subgroup 2
2 Ass
subgroup 2
Sternberg Item Recognition
Test

Serial Search
Parallel Search

Serial Search
Self-Terminating
Serial Search
Exhaustive




Presentation of a list
of 1-7 items (e.g., K, E,
B, A, M, J, C);
Presentation of a test
item (e.g., P or E);
Subject to say
whether or not the
test item was on the
list;
ET = 200 ms
ISI = 500 ms
Delay = 1000 ms
1. Higher stress-resistant group
RT "YES"
A.
RT "YES"
RT "NO"
RT "NO"
1200
1200
B.
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
“Exhaustive Search”
“Self-Terminated Search”
2. Lower stress-resistant group
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
A.
B.
600
!!!
600
400
400
200
200
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
“Self-Terminated Search”
3
4
5
6
7
8
“Mixed Strategy”
9


The high stress resistance group used strategy of an
exhaustive memory search which upon an emotional
impact switched to the strategy of a self-terminating
search increasing the task execution time;
The low stress resistance group demonstrated an
opposite trend: the group used the strategy of selfterminating search which upon an emotional impact
switched to a mixed strategy demonstrating
disorganization of the cognitive functions
Thank you for your attention!