The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization of Behavior
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Abstract
Psychological Review Vol. 66, No. 3, 1959 THE EFFECT OF EMOTION ON CUE UTILIZATION AND THE ORGANIZATION OF BEHAVIOR J. A. EASTERBROOK Institute of Psychiatry, University of London The ability to reconcile apparently to have shrunk when the use of periph- contradictory facts is the main claim eral (occasionally or partially relevant) that can be put in urging the adoption cues has been reduced, although the of a new concept. It has already been use of central and immediately relevant shown how th
Summary
Seminal theoretical paper proposing the principle that emotional arousal consistently reduces the range of environmental cues an organism uses. Easterbrook reviewed extensive evidence from animal learning (food-deprived rats), human learning, perceptual-motor tracking tasks, serial tasks, and memory research to argue that increased drive 'motivationally concentrates' attention on central/task-relevant cues at the expense of peripheral ones. The effect is organizing when the task depends on central cues and disorganizing when peripheral cues are needed.
Key finding
Increased emotional arousal narrows the range of cue utilization (motivational concentration). This principle reconciles contradictory findings about emotion and performance across domains. The receptor-effector span serves as an operational measure of the extent of cue utilization. Peripheral task performance declines under high arousal while central task performance improves, demonstrating that the total information processing capacity does not change — only its distribution.
Methodology
Comprehensive theoretical review synthesizing evidence from motivation theory, animal learning (rats), human learning experiments, perceptual-motor dual-task paradigms (tracking + peripheral monitoring), serial perceptual-motor tasks (coding, copy typing, telegraphy), and serial memory research. No original experiments; synthesizes ~60 prior studies.
Sample size: N/A (theoretical review, no empirical participants)
Quality score: 9 / 5