1998). This perspective sheds a new light on the old debate over cognitive ver-
sus emotional primacy (Lazarus, 1984; Zajonc, 1980).
While Derryberry and Tucker (1994) tend to emphasize the important bot-
tom-up role of the limbic system (and anxiety) in what they call attentional
orientating, other researchers focuses on top-down attentional control.
Allman and his colleagues (Allman, Hakeem, Erwin, Nimchinsky, & Hof,
2001) proposed, based on a bulk of neuroscientific evidence, that the anterior
cingulate cortex is responsible for emotional self-control, focused problem
solving, error recognition, and adaptive response to changing conditions, all
essential to intelligent behavior. The anterior cingulate is also the focus of
Posner and colleagues’ (Posner & Peterson, 1990; Posner & Rothbart, 1998)
work on neuronal networks of attention and self-regulation. Consistent with
their hypothesis of executive control of attention, Drevets and Raichle (1998)
found that, when subjects were performing attention-demanding cognitive
tasks, their cerebral blood flow decreased in areas controlling emotions and
increased in areas responsible for cognitive functions. This pattern implicates
an activated inhibitory mechanism at the brain level (although one can alter-
natively hypothesize that the conscious allocation of attention to task-
relevant information and suppression of certain emotional reactions can also
lead to the observed reduced blood flow).
Complex neurochemical mechanisms for effectively dealing with the
complexity and novelty of a task have also been explored. For instance,
Ashby, Isen, and Turken (1999) combined several lines of research on hu-
mans and animals and proposed a theory that dopamine mediates the ef-
fects of positive affect on cognitive flexibility in creative problem solving
through its neural pathways to impact brain structures (e.g., the anterior
cingulate) responsible for maintaining cognitive flexibility. Similarly,
Kagan (2002) suggested that the amygdala, among other brain structures,
get activated when one encounters an unexpected or discrepant event (i.e.,
novelty), creating a state of surprise. As we see in later discussion, such a
mechanism is essential for learning.
Although the previously mentioned research programs have different
emphases in terms of positive and negative contributions to intellectual
functioning, taken together, they suggest that: (a) the infrastructure of the
brain that supports various higher-order mental functions can be localized
to some extent; (b) cognitive and emotional processes are intricately related,
structurally as well as functionally, at the brain level; and (c) there are
neurochemical mechanisms for the interplay of affect and cognition (e.g.,
dopaminergic activity: Ashby et al., 1999), which are typically neglected or
unobservable in the psychological research. Thus, although still in their in-
fancy, neurobiological approaches provide a unique window for an inte-
grated understanding of biological constraints for intellectual functioning
that otherwise cannot be achieved.
10 DAI AND STERNBERG