PSYCH 409A—FALL 2001—G15












T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S




















The emotional spin cycle is a cycle in which every individual encounters every day.  It is a cycle that consists of both positive and negative feelings that lead to thoughts, resulting in actions.  Because there is no one particular definition for emotions, feelings, the threefold-self, and the hierarchy of motives, and they are all intertwined in relation to each other and the emotional spin cycle, in this report I will cite various quotes, tables, graphics, and accounts from actual people that pose various theories and views which will help us to understand each of them a little better.  Theses sources are derived from generational curriculum, news media, websites, and articles to present an in-depth insight into the individual’s emotional spin cycle. 





Since the emotional spin cycle is centered around both positive and negative feelings, leading to thoughts, resulting in actions, many times we can modify our thoughts and behavior through recognition and adaptation.  First, we need to recognize what sensations we experience when we encounter a situation.  Through recognition we gain insight into our emotional spin cycle and once we are aware of what we are “feeling” we can take the appropriate steps to change how we think, act, and react to a variety of situations and events. 

Because this project is so complex, the following overview is derived directly from the Instructions for Report 1, written by Dr. Leon James and will present a detailed overview of this project. 


Citation:  “General Instructions for Your Research Project.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“All individuals are socialized in accordance with cultural norms. To be socialized means to acquire particular habits in the three areas of human functioning:

·        habits of feeling (AFFECTIVE DOMAIN OF BEHAVIOR)

·        habits of thinking (COGNITIVE DOMAIN OF BEHAVIOR)

·        habits of acting (SENSORI-MOTOR DOMAIN OF BEHAVIOR)

Every individual has a threefold-self in which the three parts function together, yet each can be distinguished and isolated for observation and self-modification.

The threefold-self has two arenas to function in. One is the arena of "others" (or the world out there), and the second is the arena of "self." These two arenas--Others and Self--each require their own particular way of functioning. The arena of others is referred to as "the red zone" and the arena of self as "the blue zone." Every day individuals have to function in both zones since they have to deal with others (red zone) and with oneself (blue zone).

The two zones (red and blue) can be either negative or positive. For instance, rage is in "the negative red zone" because it is the feeling of anger against someone or thing. Compassion is in "the positive red zone" because it is the feeling of tolerance and caring for someone or thing. Similarly, "the negative blue zone" includes depression and self-destructive behavior since these are negative feelings towards the self. "The positive blue zone" includes feelings of self-mastery and satisfaction since these are positive feelings towards the self.

The content of the 4 zones and 12 settings are:

Zone 1 (negative red) = Feeling rage-anger (setting 1) coupled with impaired thinking (2) lead to aggressive behavior (3)

Zone 2 (negative blue) = Feeling depression (setting 4) coupled with pessimistic thinking (5) lead to self-destructive behavior (6).

Zone 3 (positive blue) = Feeling self-mastery and self-satisfaction (setting 7) coupled with optimistic thinking (8) lead to self-enhancing behavior (9).

Zone 4 (positive red) = Feeling zeal or compassion (setting 10) coupled with emotionally intelligent thinking (11) lead to supportive and constructive behavior (12).



Individuals need to recognize their emotional spin cycle in order to control it or customize it to their preference. The coping and successful person learns to control their spin cycle. Today, the majority of people report daily feelings of anger and depression, which means most individuals are stuck in the negative zone (settings 1 to 6) for too long each day. There is a habitual and automatic flip-flop effect between zone 1 (settings 1 to 3) and zone 2 (settings 4 to 6). After being active in the rage zone against others, individuals find themselves automatically sliding into the rage zone against the self, which is a state of depression. This rage-depression flip-flop is a sociogenic habit that results from socialization.”








Summarizing the contribution of Wukmir’s work of 1967 “Emoción y Sufrimiento”, this article poses a somewhat logical explanation of emotion.  Prior to Wukmir’s work, emotions were not defined but rather uncertainties and hazy descriptions of its general effects.   I chose this article because it conveys an insightful approach to the explanation of emotional phenomenon while clarifying traditional theories about something so fundamental as the nature of emotion.  I thought that this article defined the term emotion extremely well.  The following excerpts are based on the English translation of the original Spanish Text.  I thought I would just summarize this article but I found that one must read the majority of the article to gain insight to its relevance to the emotional spin cycle in the way that we perceive ourselves, others, and various situations and circumstances.  With that in mind, please be patient, and take the time to read the main points of the article below.



Citation:  “What is emotion?” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:

“We are always experiencing some type of emotion or feeling. Our emotional state varies along the day in function of what happens to us and of the stimuli that we perceive. However, we may not always be conscious of it, that is to say, we may not know or express with clarity which emotion we are experiencing in a given moment. 

Emotions are very complex experiences and, to express them, we use a great variety of terms, besides gestures and attitudes. In fact, as good poets show us, we could use all the words of a dictionary to express different emotions. Therefore, due to the infinite extension of emotional phenomena, it is impossible to make a full description of all the emotions that we can experience. However, the usual vocabulary to describe emotions is quite reduced and so, it allows people with the same cultural background, to share them.”

“The complexity with which we can express our emotions makes us think that emotion is a multifactorial or multidimensional process. We always have the impression that we lack words to describe our emotions accurately. 

But under this complexity, it underlies a common factor to all emotions: each emotion expresses a quantity or magnitude in a positive/negative scale. This way, we experience positive and negative emotions in different degrees and with diverse intensity. We can experience abrupt or gradual changes of emotional intensity, either towards the positive or negative side. That is to say, all emotion represents a magnitude or measurement along a continuum that can take positive or negative values. 

In everyday language, we express our emotions with a positive-negative scale and in variable magnitudes, such as "I feel quite well", "I feel well", "I feel very well" (degrees in the positive axis) or "I feel quite bad", "I feel bad", "I feel very bad" (degrees in the negative axis). 

According to the situation in which emotion is aroused, we choose words such as 'love', 'friendship', 'fear', 'uncertainty', 'respect', etc., that, at the same time, show the emotional sign (positive or negative). And according to the intensity of the emotion we choose words like 'nothing', 'quite', 'some', 'enough', 'very', etc., and, in this way, we compose the description of an emotion. We say, for example, "I feel very well understood" (positive) or "I feel a little deceived" (negative). 

As a result of it, we can recognize in all emotions two well-differentiated components. On one hand, a qualitative component that is expressed by means of the word that we use to describe the emotion (love, friendship, fear, insecurity, etc.) determining the positiveness or negativeness of the emotional sign. On the other hand, all emotions possess a quantitative component that is expressed by means of words of magnitude (little, quite, enough, a lot, great, some, much, etc.). The following table tries to reflect these two components of all emotions.”

“What is the meaning of the qualitative and quantitative components that all emotions have? What do our emotions measure? What does it mean 'positive' and 'negative' in our emotions? What is an emotion? 

All living organisms have perceptive mechanisms that allow them to recognize those stimuli that are significant for their survival. Stimuli that help them to obtain food, to be protected from attacks, etc. But perception only solves a part of the survival problem, because perception just recognizes the stimuli and identifies them. 

But that is not enough for living beings survival. They also need to know if the perceived (recognized) stimuli are useful and favorable for their survival. To do so, they need some kind of mechanism to know if what they have perceived is favorable for their survival. What kind of mechanism can it be? 

V.J. Wukmir (1967) proposed that emotions are this mechanism. Emotion is an immediate answer of the organism that informs about the degree of favorability of the perceived situation. If it seems to favor its survival, the living being experiences a positive emotion (happiness, satisfaction, desire, peace, etc.), and it experiences a negative emotion (sadness, disillusion, sorrow, anguish, etc.) when the situation seems to be unfavorable for its survival. All living beings have this mechanism of emotion which guides them all the time, acting as a compass, to find favorable situations to survive (those which produce positive emotions) and to move away from those unfavorable for survival (which produce negative emotions).”

“This emotional appraisal is carried out by means of many diverse physico-chemical mechanisms depending on the complexity of the organism. Even unicellular organisms have simple emotional mechanisms to evaluate if a situation or stimulus is favorable or unfavorable to survive. Mammals have much more complex emotional mechanisms and their brain plays the fundamental role (limbic system among others). 

With the development of the brain cortex, in the evolution of the neurological system, the cognitive processes play a very important role in the elaboration of emotions. In particular, the importance of the neocortex in the human species is such that, the cognitive processes determine in great measure our emotions. But the fact that the córtex and neocórtex participate in the elaboration of the emotions doesn't mean that they do it in a rational way. The elaboration of the emotions is an involuntary process, of which you can only be partially conscious. 

Often we speak about the emotional control or about controlling the emotions as a necessary ability for successful social relationships. In this case, to control the emotions means that one is able of concealing the emotions that is experiencing. That is to say, we don't have control about the emotion itself and we just can control its external manifestation. 

In summary, we want to say that by means of the emotion, an organism knows, conscious or unconsciously, if a situation is more or less favorable for its survival. The emotion is the fundamental mechanism that all the living beings possess to be guided in their struggle for survival.”


However, according to Jyotindra, a classical pianist, we should not try to suppress our emotions because they are natural.  But, as she states, we can try to change them to higher, less disturbing emotions so that we can attain a sense of balance, therefore operating in zones 3 and 4 of the emotional spin cycle.  The following quote may be debatable.   Some say the complete opposite—that expressing emotions may be more detrimental to an individual than suppressing them.  So which one is correct?  I guess everyone has his or her own viewpoints.  I, agree with Jyotindra but only to an extent.  Expressing emotions may be very beneficial.  Sharing happiness may make others happier around you, sharing anger may sometimes stop people from taking advantage of you—etc.  However there is definitely a time when one should suppress their emotions as well—especially depending on how they tend to act upon their emotions.  For instance, if someone is so angry and their intention is to cause damage to someone or something, they should definitely suppress their feelings.  What do you think?


Citation:  “Should we only listen to spiritual music?” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Emotions are of course human, they are perfectly natural. We should never try to kill -to suppress- our emotions. But we can try to change them into higher, less disturbing emotions, so that we feel more balanced.”



Another paralleling viewpoint but in a more technical aspect of emotion is that of Squires.  This article indicates that suppressing your emotions in not an intelligent thing to do.  While a person experiences things such as stress, their body physically tenses up and interferes with the ability to think clearly during the event and to recall the details afterward.  It also states that encouraging emotions frees brain cells to perform other functions vital to our emotional spin cycle such as thinking.  I was very intrigued by this article and learned a lot.  Previous to reading this article, I did not know that expressing emotions actually interfered with things such as thinking.  Sure, I knew that when you are mad, you can’t think clearly but I thought it was only a figure of speech.



Citation:  “Science Proves It: Restraining Your Emotions Is Not Very Smart.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Suppressing emotions is a common, and often highly regarded, habit of modern life.”


“But keeping a lid on emotions takes so much vigilance, according to a series of recent studies by Richards and James J. Gross of Stanford University, that it seriously drains brain power.”

“Avoiding suppression of emotions frees brain cells to perform other functions, such as thinking. That, in turn, "makes it easier to remember what was going on around you later on," Richards says.”

“Which is not to suggest "letting it all hang out" makes you a genius. Or that suppressing emotions isn't important from time to time. "Don't wipe it from your emotional repertoire," Richards says. "It can serve an important function. But just be aware that by virtue of suppressing, you may not be paying enough attention to the world around you.”







“How to Express Difficult Feelings” ascertains that feelings and thoughts are different but also one and the same.  I chose this article because it intertwines the concepts of both thought and feelings and how they interact with each other.  It provides a detailed explanation on why we feel what we do and how we go about resolving these issues.



Citation:  “How to Express Difficult Feelings.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Feelings and thoughts are different, but also are one and the same. They are like the head and tail of a coin. We react to events with both thoughts and feelings. Feelings are emotions, and sensations, and they are different from thoughts, beliefs, interpretations, and convictions. When difficult feelings are expressed, the sharp edges are dulled, and it is easier to release or let go of the bad feeling. If we only express our beliefs about the event and not the feelings, the bad feelings linger and are often harder to release. Whenever someone says, "I feel that..." the person is about to express a belief, not a feeling.” 



Because every individual experiences the emotional spin cycle, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we all experience it in the same way.  While some experience the cycle in the “correct” order others as James states are stuck in it.  Have you ever had someone tell you that what you are feeling is silly?  Have you ever had someone tell you that you should feel so mad, sad, etc.?  This article proves that those statements are complete lies!  It provides insight into various types of feelings.  Well—sort of.  Do we really need to know what feelings are?  What we are feeling?  Why we are feeling it?  I chose this article because I thought it gave the best definitions to feelings—“it just is”; short and simple but yet so complex.  Now when people tell you that you shouldn’t feel the way you do, you can tell them to back off.



Citation:  “Safe for Feeling.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Feelings are a natural part of being human, living in a body. They come in response to our inner and outer experiences of the present moment, in response to memories of past experiences evoked by/in the present moment and, often, in response to our anticipation of moments yet to come.

We don't need to know WHY we're feeling what we're feeling in order to have the feeling. (We don't EVEN have to know WHAT we're feeling in order to feel it!) There's no way a feeling can itself be "wrong" or "bad" (although we may feel badly). A feeling just is.

And, it's ALWAYS a lie when anyone (including your own critical self) tells you "You can't possibly be feeling (fill-in-the-blank) about that!" or "You have no reason to be feeling that way," or "You shouldn't feel so (fill-in-the-blank)."

Feelings of any sort don't go on forever. When we can give ourselves safe, protected space and our own permission to just feel whatever we're feeling, it does run a course. Often, this takes longer than we (and others around us) may think it should.

As we practice engaging with each feeling and its energy in our consciousness and in our bodies; as we find ways to release its intensity (by crying, drawing, writing, yelling, stomping, banging etc.) and ways to comfort ourselves in the midst of the storm, each particular experience of grief, sadness, rage, terror does come to an end.

Sometimes it comes to an end because WE'RE exhausted! Other times because we've exhausted the feeling for the time, felt our way through it.

Each time we can break the cultural taboo against taking our feelings seriously, feeling them for as long as we feel them, we reclaim more of our natural wholeness.

Be really gentle with yourself as you practice feeling your feelings!”



Many times people refer to feelings as emotions.  They are WRONG!!  According to this article, “feelings are not emotions” because “feelings don’t disturb our inner balance.  Emotions do.”  I thought this was a very interesting article because it put things into a whole new perspective for me.  This article presents how our emotions such as anger, frustration, jealousy, sadness, happiness, are affected by listening to various types of music.  While listening to music is just a pastime for most of us, it really isn’t.  Certain types of music can actually relax us while other types may provoke and even agitate us.  The following article points out which types can often produce certain emotions that may affect our feelings.



Citation:  “Should we only listen to spiritual music?” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Most classical western music (like Mozart's and Beethoven's) affects our emotions and to a small extent our body. This music can make us happy or sad, relaxed or energetic etcetera. It is rarely able to bring us deep peace, because there is always some emotion in this music. Emotions don't make it impossible to relax somewhat, but they prevent deep inner peace.”


“Sadness, anger, physical or emotional attraction (often called love), jealousy, bubbling over with mirth -they are all emotions. They can be pleasant or unpleasant, but they all make us restless. Feelings, like spiritual love, compassion and joy, are different. They can exist in a peaceful mind.”


“On the same note, we need to be aware of our feelings.  As Jyotindra states, “we always need to keep place in ourselves for feelings. Without love, without compassion, without joy, our life is gray!”



The next article “How Music Affect Drivers:  Watch What You Listen To”  I found to be quite alarming.  The reason for my concern is that the author of this article says that fast temp music makes his drive faster and more aggressive.  So, does that mean that a lot of people who listen to fast tempo music while driving react in the same way?  I sure hope not.  But, as he says there are many other factors that must be considered as well such as self-fulfilling prophecies covered in the next section.



Citation:  “How Music Affects Drivers: Watch What You Listen To.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“Let me see there were a few things that had interested me on this topic.  First of all I think we can say that music does affect our driving.  I think that music affects each of us differently and it would be really hard to say that everyone fits into a certain category.  I believe in self-fulfilling prophecies.  In your unconscious there lies opinions that you may be unaware of.  I think that it is these opinions that shape us all and aids in the self fulfilling prophecies.  I have found that fast tempo music will tend to make me drive faster or more aggressive but there are many other factors that must be considered as well.

I feel that there are many reasons people may drive aggressively due to their mood, music, weather, time of day, level of consciousness, or whether they are in a hurry or not all makes a difference.  I find that when I am in a hurry the music I choose to listen too tends to be more of a fast pace.  I do not listen to slow music when I am in a hurry, for some reason I feel that it makes me irritable because tries to slow me down which is all mental.  All this is occurring in my head and most of the time I am unaware of it.  I did not pay much attention to it prior to taking this class but, since taking this class I have found that I am more aware of my mood and level of consciousness while driving.

Another observation that I have noticed is that when I am tired on the road I like to roll down my windows to get some fresh air but more importantly I try to find some fast paced music to wake me up and I turn it up LOUD.  I find that this helps to revive me.”







Since behaviorism is an approach to psychology that focuses on overt behavior and is based on the belief that personality is determined by rewards and punishments, these rewards and punishments are rather skills and errors that may be customized through further learning.   According to James, this acquisition process is present in three distinct domains of the person, which are the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor (or perceptual-motor) and are interrelated to behavior as a nested structure.   In it’s simplest from, the affective domain may be defined as the feeling one experiences, the cognitive domain may be defined as the thinking once experiences, and the sensorimotor domain may be defined as the action one takes toward a variety of individuals (including oneself) or situations.



Citation:  “Data on the Private World of the Driver in Traffic:  Affective, Cognitive, and Sensorimotor.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“In its modern version, behaviorism is committed to a unified theory that tries to deal with external and internal aspects of the self (Staats, 1981; Mischel, 1973). For instance, the concept of personality is defined in terms of built-up repertoires of basic habits. These are actually skills and errors that can be modified through further learning. This acquisition process is going on in three distinct domains of the person: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor (or perceptual-motor). Figure 1 depicts the inter-relationship between these three aspects of driver behavior as a nested structure. All skills at any level of expertise contain affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor features. An illustration is presented in Table 1 based on self-witnessing reports by drivers. Though the recording of the report is necessarily sequential in that the driver focuses separately on each domain, in actuality the model assumes that all three are going on simultaneously.”



In relation to the emotional spin cycle and the sensorimotor domain, I stumbled upon a really interesting article that illustrates that after aggressive conflicts, monkeys usually make dramatic gestures of reconciliation that include hugging and kissing. But various studies—some probing the evolutionary origins of aggression, and others, our conscious ability to control it—are changing the ways in which researchers regard violence. Indeed, primatologists are now suggesting that aggressive behavior be viewed as a normal means for competing and negotiating within groups, and not as a fundamentally antisocial instinct. They theorize how aggression ends and how it can be kept under control among humans through behavior modification.



Citation:  “Understanding Violence.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“One intriguing perceptual shift is coming from those who regularly observe our closest kin, the chimpanzees, and other monkeys. Indeed, primatologists are now suggesting that aggressive behavior be viewed as a normal means for competing and negotiating within groups, and not as a fundamentally antisocial instinct. This shift, they say, could lead to a better understanding of how aggression ends and can be kept under control among humans.”



We first need to recognize how we react to various circumstances and situations before we can modify our behavior.  This includes thoughts, bodily sensations, feelings, emotions, and behavior.   I chose the following article because it gives ideas on how to recognize your thoughts and feelings and gives suggestions on how to control your behavior and reduce stress, which may stabilize the emotional spin cycle.



Citation:  “How to cope with stress.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:

“Before we consider how to cope with stress, it is important to first understand what happens in our body and mind when we are confronted with stress. The process begins with a source of stress or a stressor, which may be a conflict in the office or home, a financial loss or broken love affair or any such thing. As a result of this, things start happening at four levels in our body and mind.

These are: Thoughts, bodily sensations, feelings and emotions and behaviour.

Rather than helping us, such repetitive negative thoughts add to our misery and further increase stress. Along with the chain of thoughts, we also start feeling many odd sensations in the body. There is tension in the limbs, pain in head and neck, pressure over chest, an upset stomach, inability to sleep and so on. Most of us, mistakenly, consider it signs of an illness and an additional process of worry and stress begins.

Along with bodily sensations, another important process that we need to recognize is our psychological feelings or emotions during stress. Mostly, when we are under stress we get angry, agitated, anxious, depressed or suspicious. These negative emotions in turn, add to our stress. Lastly, it is important to recognize how we behave during a period of stress. Here also most of us choose unhealthy ways of coping. We adopt unhealthy dietary habits, we start missing our exercise, start smoking and drinking excessively, drive recklessly and so o n. All these negative behaviour-patterns add to our ill-health and start another vicious cycle of stress.

If we have to develop a strategy to cope with stress, we must learn to act at these four levels — thoughts, bodily sensations, emotions and behaviour — so that they do not add to your existing stress. The first important thing is recognition of what is happening at these four levels and then reversing the process.”



Because more and more accidents are occurring around the world, I thought the following excerpt in the Generational Curriculum is very appropriate.  This article associates cognition and driving.  It proposes how reckless drivers became reckless drives and techniques to modify their behavior.  This year alone, in Hawaii, there have been a number of traffic fatalities.  I wonder if many of these fatalities may have been avoided if drivers were more aware of the danger they create for themselves and others.



Citation:  “Data Project Report: Self-Witnessing of Driving.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:

“Today the cognitive behavioral approach has become increasingly popular as a form of therapy for many individuals (Phares, pg. 252). The main idea of the cognitive behavioral perspective is that an individual's cognition and thought plays a vital role in that person's behavior. The cognitive behavioral theory can be applied to traffic in terms of rationalizing and understanding one's driving behavior.

First, several methods can be used to discover a driver's cognition.”

“Cognitive behavioral therapy could be a positive method of reforming reckless drivers. Therapists might be able to help a reckless driver become a careful driver by teaching them to label situations more realistically. By labeling situations more realistically, drivers may realize the danger they are creating for themselves and for those around them. “

“In order for drivers to come to this realization, therapists might strike up an argument in attempt to get the driver to see the irrationality of his or her beliefs. Furthermore, drivers may be taught to stop and ask themselves why and what is causing the aggression and anger and if it is really worth the anxiety that's involved.

In addition to the cognitive aspect, drivers should be taught to find an alternative means of reacting to their anger that is more rational and less stressful to the driver. For example, instead of driving reckless to relieve the tension (which for me, would make me go more crazy) maybe they can stick in a favorite (CD or tape to calm their nerves.

In extreme cases, maybe the driver should even pull over on the side to overcome their anger and proceed traffic when they are certain they are ready. Therefore, the goal of a cognitive behavioral therapist in terms of driving is to make drivers be able to confront their unreasonable thinking and to use common sense as to how to react in their situation.”



Why are affective behavior, cognitive behavior, and sensory motor behavior important?  Each one of these components contributes to every individual’s emotional spin cycle.  Without will and feelings (affective), there would not be any intellect and thoughts (cognition), and without will and feelings, intellect and thoughts, there would not be any actions (sensorimotor).  Therefore, what would we be without any of these things?  Would we be inanimate objects?  Would we be humans?  The following article gives a definition of each of the three components, and how it affects an individual with the relation to driving.  I chose this article because even though it is based on the three components of driving, it also made me think…what would we be without any of these components?



Citation:  Driving And Aggression: An Examination Of Driving Behavior.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available: - feelings


“Human behavior can be categorized into three components: affective behavior, cognitive behavior, and sensory-motor behavior. Affective behavior and cognitive behavior can be described as mental behavior; affective behavior is the will and feelings, cognitive behavior is the intellect and thoughts, while sensory-motor behavior is physiological. In the driving context, the affective component would be the driver's will, the cognitive the driver's rationality, and knowledge and the sensory-motor the driver's performance (Jakobovits' lecture, 1988).”



The following passage is taken from a report in an earlier generational curriculum.  The reason I chose this report was because I thought that his definition of the three-fold self was very well defined.  This report gives various documented accounts of the feelings and actions that drivers have experienced. The author then analyzes each incident through the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor domains and attempts to explain or justify these driver’s feelings and actions through each of these domains.  One of the faults that I found in this report is, that the author can only speculate because he did not actually experience the situation.  He states ways in which these drivers can modify their behavior but how would he have acted?  Would he have practiced what he preached or would he have reacted the same way as the drivers that he scrutinized?



Citation:  “Affective, Cognitive, and Sensorimotor Aspects of Traffic Psychology.” Internet. 8 Oct. 2001. Available:


“One principle in Traffic Psychology is that driving behavior includes the affective domain (feelings and motives), the cognitive domain (thoughts and judgments), and the sensorimotor domain (sensory input and motor output). These three aspects, occur so quickly that it often seems like a reaction. But since they all affect each other, if we can recognize them, we can control our actions behind the wheel. Which makes us all better drivers. All three are present in any single traffic behavior.”






In similarity to the behaviorist theory, humanistic theories approach psychology with the basis that the belief that people strive to achieve their maximum potential.  These theories of personality stress; the importance of the environment in the development of personality, and that imply an active drive of the individual toward health, growth, and creativity.   As the threefold-self operates through affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor behavior, the hierarchy of motives revolves around emotions, feelings, and values and without motives, the three-fold self would not be operational.  So how do we achieve these motives? Abraham Maslow explained personality and human behavior in terms of motivation.  According to him, people act and react as they do because they are motivated by certain needs.  The following passage explains these motivations in detail.   What I don’t understand though is how do we know how the individual perceives situations or how they interpret the situation.  Because this theory of the hierarchy of motives has never been tested, there is no hard evidence that these needs are organized in a hierarchy of levels.  I chose this article because although there is no hard evidence, it helps to gain a different approach on the emotional spin cycle and how it is motivated.



Citation:  “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“This hierarchy is usually depicted as a pyramid with five levels, ranging from the most basic needs at the bottom to the most complex and sophisticated at the top. From bottom to top, the levels are biological needs (food, water, shelter); safety; belongingness and love; the need to be esteemed by others; and self-actualization, the need to realize one's full potential. According to Maslow, the needs at each level must be met before one can progress to the next level. Maslow considered fewer than one percent of the population to be self-actualized individuals. However, he believed that all human beings still possessed an innate (if unmet) need to reach this state.”





Where do we get our morals and values?  In “Cashing In On The Values Of American Education” written by Campbell our morals and values are learned through our education systems.  He professes that educators teach morals and values improperly and that educators in fact, contribute to violence, confusion, and irrationality and destroys their ability to think for themselves.  After I read this article, I have to say that I agree with Campbell and he has a very valid point.  If students advance in school, they must have been motivated through parents, society, teachers, etc.  They receive a passing grade and advance to another grade level.  Is that really morally correct?  What happens if the student tries their hardest in school and does not receive a passing grade?  Will they be deemed as stupid, incompetent?  How will they feel about themselves and the people around them?  Chances are they would be stuck in zones 1 and 2 of the emotional spin cycle.  After being active in the rage zone against others, they would begin to rage against the self, automatically, which would be a state of depression. This rage-depression flip-flop is a sociogenic habit that results from socialization within society beginning in the education system.  I have to say though; just educators do not influence children and adults alike.  They are influenced by society in general.  But it makes you think.  Would society be the way it is if they were not educated to be this way?



Citation:  “Cashing In On The Values Of American Education.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:

“Can it be true that no one can comprehend the increasing levels of violence in our schools? Far from being a sign of the lack of values, it is the ominous sign of the presence of certain values now pervading the education of our youth, from grade schools right through university. These are values that demean human life, that confuse and destroy the ability to think, that rob children of their dignity and vitality, and substitute anxiety, resentment, and irrationality. It is the cashing-in of the consequences of the philosophy of John Dewey and the progressive public education movement.

Our educators long ago abandoned their charge to teach reason and the proper use of one's mind. It has become more important to mold the personality of the child, to produce a citizen who has the correct social attitudes above all, who is willing to live his life for others' purposes. And these objectives have come to dominate the educational activities of the schools: Teachers spend more of their professional education learning psychology, sociology, behaviorism, than they do learning their intellectual disciplines. Schools assume and assert increasing authority over the individual lives of their students: they feed them, counsel them, minister to their self-esteem, provide entertainment, organize athletic activities, volunteer their free time to "community activity," monitor their health, direct their health care with and without the agreement of their families, teach and monitor their sexuality, provide contraception, arrange abortions, undermine and demean their parents. And over the century that these priorities have been promoted, the education of our children has dramatically worsened, the level of literacy has declined, and more graduate with inadequate skills. The colleges spend 1-2 years trying to remediate the failures of schools (and lose that time to provide the level of education appropriate to university). We pay the highest per pupil cost for education in the world, and have some of the very worst outcomes. All suffer, but ironically it is the disadvantaged who suffer most, because a proper education is truly their best hope to improve their lives.

Commentators rely on cheap psychology to explain these events: loss of self-esteem, stress of contemporary life, lack of family support, and susceptibility to violence, emotional rage. Or cheap sociology: poverty, class envy, bad neighborhoods, guns, drugs, and not enough religion. Left out of these lists is: the mind.

We are accustomed to viewing emotions and the mind as opposites. But in truth, they are one. It is a man's (and child's) assessment of himself and of the world around him, however they are attained, that determines the state of his emotions. A child who is taught to think effectively, who is rewarded with knowledge and achievement, who learns the history of mankind's positive achievements, will be a child with self-confidence, efficacy, and a positive outlook on life. A child who cannot think, whose reward for work is ignorance and for achievement is humiliation, who is taught to despise mankind, will be a child of fear and anxiety, of helplessness, anger, and a negative outlook on life. We commonly say "get your emotions under control," by which we acknowledge the role of the mind and reason in governing emotional behavior. But we often miss the fundamental role of the mind in forming emotional responses. And so what do we do in our schools today? We teach children that mankind is the scourge of the earth, that every productive enterprise of man is a threat to the planet. Plants, animals, children, the earth itself are being destroyed by man. Our teachers even get the children engaged in lobbying on these matters. Our Vice-President Gore proclaims this assessment as the most important insight of modern times.

We teach our children that America was founded by a bunch of racist, hypocritical, environmentally reckless, antihuman white European misfits. That the Declaration and the Constitution are oppressive documents, which should be trashed or rewritten. And this is all accomplished because we don't even actually teach history anymore. The story of man on earth is not taught as a full, integrated context, as a story of advancement and defeats of fundamental ideas. Instead, it's a story of gangs and random events, with no rational explanation.

We convince children that they cannot even trust their parents, because their parents smoke, and are prejudiced. Parental authority is trumped at every possible opportunity. Even notes from the parents are not accepted in the schools. Children must write journals about their home lives, which then become subjects of discussion and humiliation.

Every subject, even the basic, foundational ones, is taught with a social or psychological purpose, rather than with the purpose of mastering the discipline. Thus, in reading, the schools abandoned teaching the basic phonemic and phonetic and symbolic nature of the alphabet, and the rules of its use. Instead, they declared that reading was a natural innate skill, and one need only teach whole words, one by one. In throwing out the concepts of reading, and teaching the concretes of reading (words-as-objects), the educators undermined children's reading skills and intellectual development. Thus, children are made to feel helpless, incompetent. They have poor vocabularies, poor spelling, poor comprehension, poor writing (which is hardly taught at all). A child without the skills or the concepts of reading cannot advance his knowledge and skill by himself, nor nearly as fast as a child who understands the conceptual nature of the act of reading. The first is overwhelmed at every encounter with something new; the other has the key to open every encounter.

But this approach sits well with the underlying philosophy. Listen to a prominent teacher at a national conference on teaching reading: "[Whole Language] advocates ... deny the view that grounded truth and meaning can be determined once and for all ... [We] would like to replace the desire for objective knowledge of reality and truth, the desire to be in touch with reality ... with a desire for solidarity with the community" (from the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, 1992). The most ardent desire and need of a child is to be in touch with reality. But the goal of teaching reading is not to put the child into touch with the reality of reading skills, but to put the child in touch with texts chosen by the educator, to make the child desire solidarity with the goals of the educator.

Having undermined the child's pride and confidence in being part of humankind, and undermining his confidence and pride in his nation, and undermining his relationship with his family, it is only left to destroy his individuality. This is already reflected in the program of instruction as above. Teach him in such a way that he will be incompetent, and then blame him and his family for not doing enough. Take his authority over his own life and choices away from him, and make him volunteer for purposes defined by the school. Do not reward excellence, but gently admonish those who have skills that they are lucky, that they should not take too much pride in achievement lest they humiliate someone. Emphasize these points by promoting and rewarding those who do not achieve.

Choosing values is the basic act of an individual. Such choices are the basis of living a human life. A total assault on the individual child would not be complete without an assault on his ability to make such choices. This is done in the discussion circle. Since, according to the educator above, there is no reality or truth to be known, the way our children are taught about values is to reach a consensus with others (the "community"), not on the basis of principles or knowledge, but on the basis of feelings. The lesson is twofold: the guide to values is feelings, and the validation of feelings is through consensus in a group. Such an approach divorces individual responsibility from values and action, obscures the true conceptual foundation of values, engenders a group or tribal mentality (well-suited to immature teenagers especially), and also causes unrationalized resentments in those whose personally held values are voted out.

This philosophy has now been taught for two generations of American children, and the consequences are everywhere apparent. At the level of the schools, we see more and more children without knowledge and purpose. Children who resent those who can achieve (e.g., at Littleton, the jocks), sit in their little groups, and talk about their likes and dislikes (their feelings). They take a consensus on values (as they have been taught to do), and justify eliminating who or what they do not like. They have no sense of guilt, because they do not know individual responsibility, and consensus provides the validation of their group, however small. Their cultural role models reflect all these values: the crude lyrics of their favorite songs, graceless dances (= graceless human beings), grubby clothes and styles (= unworthy human beings), raw sex (not relationships or love), gangs and groups, violence and emotion (consensus for power, not reason to understand reality.)”




Similarly, Mova states that we are taught at a young age to be territorial.  Which brings me back to my original question, who teaches us to be territorial?  Where do we learn these morals?  This preceding article also supposes that we build fences and walls around where our territory begins and ends.  Why do we do this?  Could it be because of the educators as the article above implies?   I think that it is a probable conclusion.  We build these fictitious schemas up in our heads and we live by them.  But then again other schemas such as racism, stereotypes, etc. all stem from these schemas.  Unfortunately we know they are wrong, but we still do nothing about them—well most of us anyways.



Citation:  “Identifying Attitudes Through Newsgroups Messages.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available: - moral


We are taught at a young age to be territorial. We build fences and walls to let others know where our territory begins and ends. We feel that we "own" the space around us and around things we own such as our cars, especially if it is a nice, expensive car. When someone violates this norm and invades our territory, especially while driving, we feel threatened. This personal threat is a process to the beginning of "road rage." I interpret this attitude as an invasion of space attitude, which unfortunately becomes aggressive behavior. We've been taught as human beings, dating back many centuries, to protect our surroundings upon an invasion from others. Through our own socialization processes, we should focus on what is being taught and observed by our children. They are learning our bad driving habits and they are the next generation. Our morals need to change.”



“The Borders of Intelligence” explains what emotions are but more importantly how we use them.  I found this article to be very valuable because we could either use emotions for positivity or negativity.   How many people actually understand their emotions?  If they do understand them, do they use their understanding to benefit society or detriment society?  Okay, so if you are lucky enough to modify your behavior are you doing it for yourself or for society?  And, if you gain the knowledge and skills to modify your behavior, what about the people who have not been as fortunate?  Could you then say, that with all the skills that you have learned you could use it against the less fortunate as sort of a reverse psychology to gain what you want?  These are the questions that have boggled my mind.  This article suggests that there are people who would use this to their own advantage rather than their society as a whole in a sort of selfish sense.



Citation:  “The Borders of Intelligence.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


“I see two problems with the notion of emotional intelligence. First, unlike language or space, the emotions are not contents to be processed; rather, cognition has evolved so that we can make sense of human beings (self and others) that possess and experience emotions. Emotions are part and parcel of all cognition, though they may well prove more salient at certain times or under certain circumstances: they accompany our interactions with others, our listening to great music, our feelings when we solve -- or fail to solve -- a difficult mathematical problem. If one calls some intelligences emotional, one suggests that other intelligences are not -- and that implication flies in the face of experience and empirical data.

The second problem is the conflation of emotional intelligence and a certain preferred pattern of behavior. This is the trap that Daniel Goleman sometimes falls into in his otherwise admirable Emotional Intelligence. Goleman singles out as emotionally intelligent those people who use their understanding of emotions to make others feel better, to solve conflicts, or to cooperate in home or work situations. No one would dispute that such people are wanted. However, people who understand emotion may not necessarily use their skills for the benefit of society.”


“Turning to the social (or human, if you prefer) realm, subjects can be presented with simulated interactions and asked to judge the shifting motivations of each actor. Or they can be asked to work in an interactive hypermedia production with unfamiliar people who are trying to accomplish some sort of goal, and to respond to their various moves and countermoves. The program can alter responses in light of the moves of the subject. Like a high-stakes poker game, such a measure should reveal much about the interpersonal or emotional sensitivity of a subject.”










Citation:  “Affective, Cognitive, and Sensorimotor Aspects of Traffic Psychology.” Internet. 8 Oct. 2001. Available: 


Citation:  “Data Project Report: Self-Witnessing of Driving.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  Driving And Aggression: An Examination Of Driving Behavior.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “How Music Affects Drivers: Watch What You Listen To.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Identifying Attitudes Through Newsgroups Messages.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:






Citation:  “Cashing In On The Values Of American Education.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “How to cope with stress.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Science Proves It: Restraining Your Emotions Is Not Very Smart.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “The Borders of Intelligence.”  Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Understanding Violence.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:





Citation:  “Data on the Private World of the Driver in Traffic:  Affective, Cognitive, and Sensorimotor.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “General Instructions for Your Research Project.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “How to Express Difficult Feelings.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Safe for Feeling.” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “Should we only listen to spiritual music?” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:


Citation:  “What is emotion?” Internet. 27 Sept. 2001. Available:




Email #42