Approaches To Emotion

Klaus R. Scherer, Paul Ekman, Klaus R. Scherer, Paul Ekman

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317757634
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This sourcebook is intended as a reader in the fullest sense of that word: a work that offers researchers and students alike the opportunity to examine the many different aspects and widely divergent approaches to the study of emotion. The contributors include samples of biological, ontogenetic, ethological, psychological, sociological, and anthropological approaches.

I	BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

We tremble, sweat, cry, and choke, when emotional, have butterflies in our stomach, goosepimples on our skins, and tears in our eyes. It is not surprising, then, that most emotion theorists have placed great emphasis on the biology of the emotions; in many cases, the physiological mechanisms and processes that were postulated to underly emotional experience and behavior actually preceded the psychological aspects of the theory (e.g., theories by James, Lange, Cannon, McLean, Arnold, Pribram).

There are two major sources of controversy. One issue concerns the relevance of underlying biological factors to psychological theory and research. Some have argued that the search for underlying physiological processes will not be helpful in discovering psychological laws. The proponents of this view decry biological reductionism and call for a clear-cut separation of the different levels of analysis. The opposing view is that psychological phenomena can not be understood without specifying the underlying physiological processes and, if possible, isolating and localizing the structures that are involved. Proponents of this view see the study of the physiology of emotion as the best road to an understanding of emotion.

The second major controversy involves the longstanding dispute between peripheralists and centralists. Whereas the peripheralists hold that most of the important aspects of the physiology of emotion can be found in the autonomic nervous systems, particularly the viscera; the centralists believe that the localization of the cortical and limbic system structures that are involved in mediating emotional processes are far more important.

Increasingly, emotion researchers are rejecting either extreme position. Both peripheral and central processes are relevent to an understanding of emotion. The question is not which is more important, but the way in which these structures interact. Similarly, the question is not whether physiology and psychology are to study emotion in isolation of each other, or whether one or the other has to play the leading role, but rather how each other can benefit from the respective theories and findings in contributing to the accumulation of knowledge on each level of analysis. We need to be certain that psychological theories and research efforts are not at odds with established physiological facts. In addition, theory and research on the biology of emotion can provide very important leads for psychological and sociological (see Kemper, this volume) theorizing. The contributions in this section provide testimony for the important contributions of the biological study of emotion.

In the first chapter, Karl Pribram provides an impressive example of a way in which physiological and neurological research findings can be used to develop a conceptualization of emotional phenomena that is amenable to a comparative analysis with psychological emotion constructs. Based on established findings concerning neurophysiological localization and processes, Pribram postulates four major dimensions of emotions related to arousal and stability, specificity and diffuseness of sensations, affective (emotional) and effective (motivational) feelings, and “self versus world outside.” Although speculative, this approach suggests a number of fascinating leads for both theory and research.

The remaining chapters in this section explore specific issues in the biological context in more detail. Richard Davidson deals with an important central phenomenon, the timely issue of lateral asymmetry in hemispheric processing. On the basis of a number of studies in his own laboratory and other research, Davidson concludes that there may be a phylogenetically continuous asymmetry in affective processing, with the right hemisphere specialized for negative emotions characterized by avoidance and the left hemisphere for positive emotions characterized by approach tendencies. Again, this biological issue concerning localization and structure turns out to be very fruitful for the development of psychological theorizing. Davidson shows the relevance of the lateralization issue, and its potential for the development of research hypotheses concerning such issues as cognitive-affective interactions, the development of emotion in the infant, the effect of coping styles and affective disturbances.

Peter Whybrow contributes a detailed exploration of an area that is receiving increasing attention: the neuroendocrine functions and their contribution to emotion. There is mounting evidence of hormonal and neurotransmitter changes in emotional arousal. Whybrow musters impressive evidence for the patterning of such neuroendocrine changes, i.e., the notion that there are predictable patterns of changes on the neurochemical level that correspond to specific kinds of emotions. Given that the notion of patterned physiological responses has been much doubted in recent years (e.g., Schachter & Singer; also, see chapters by Ekman & Kemper), these findings rekindle the interest in looking for emotion specific response patterns.

1	Emotion: A Neurobehavioral Analysis

Karl H. Pribram

Stanford University

Current scientific knowledge regarding the physiology of emotion has its roots in Galenical medicine. Four “humors”—sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic—were considered to determine differences in temperament. The humors were believed to be organ secretions, and modern biomedical research has supplemented these primitives with a host of endocrine and exocrine hormones that even today must be seriously considered in any comprehensive treatment of the biological regulations that determine feelings of emotion and motivation.

In addition to the multiplication and specification of humors, several other major developements have occurred in the scientific study of the biology of emotions. The first of these developments points to the role of nonhumoral mechanisms in the emotional process: Lange’s “visceral” theory made famous by William James (1890), and Nina Bull’s “muscle” based attitude theory (1951) are probably the most important of these. Furthermore, brain mechanisms have been shown to be central to understanding emotions. The realization that the brain is involved in the experience and expression of emotions began with the work of Gall and Spurzheim (1809/1969), at the beginning of the 19th century, and achieved considerable sophistication by its end.

Currently, these developments have become enshrined in two central themes that can be identified in practically all biological approaches to emotion: One theme explores the relationship between visceral-glandular reactions and the brain in producing emotion; the other deals with the quantitative relationship between neural excitation and emotion. As we see later, these relationships, although substantial, by themselves form neither an adequate framework for understanding the complexities of emotional processes nor an outline for understanding the intricacies of the relevant neural apparatus. Nonetheless, they do provide a familiar starting point for inquiry, and the basis for developing a more comprehensive view that encompasses the results of recent neurophysiological research.

A LABILE-STABILE DIMENSION

The Visceral Theme

The impact of the visceral theme has been great and is reflected everywhere in our language. “He couldn’t be expected to swallow that”; “she has no stomach for it”; “he broke her heart”; “the guy has no guts”; “he sure is bilious today,” and so on. In fact, until 1800 A.D. the Galenic medical world subscribed to the notion that while thoughts circulate in the ventricles of the brain, emotions circulate in the vascular system. Gradually, medical and psychological science has become liberated from this view by the accrual of facts showing it to be in error. But the retreat has been a slow and guarded one, partly because old theories do not die easily, and partly because this view has hold of an important part of the truth. The most famous formulations that signal a step-wise retreat and liberation from this view are those of James and Lange, of Cannon and Bard, and of Papez and MacLean.

James and Lange fully faced the accumulated knowledge of the functions of the circulatory and nervous systems of the previous century. They offered the following postulates: When an organism’s reaction to a situation involves visceral structures, the sensations aroused by visceral function are perceived as emotional feelings. This proposition provoked a good deal of experimentation. A summary taken from Cannon’s critical examinations of the James-Lange theory (1927) is paradigmatic in showing the theory’s weaknesses: (1) Total separation of the viscera from the central nervous system does not alter emotional behavior. (2) The same visceral changes occur in very different emotional states and in nonemotional states. (3) The viscera are relatively insensitive structures. (4) Visceral changes are too slow to be a source of emotional feeling. (5) Artificial induction of the visceral changes typical of strong emotions does not produce those emotions.

In place of the visceral theory, Cannon proposed a brain (thalamic) theory: emotional expression results from the operation of hypothalamic structures; emotion feeling results from stimulations of the dorsal thalamus. This theory was based on the observations that “sham,” emotionlike behavior, could be elicited in decorticated and decerebrated preparations, but not when thalamic structures are additionally ablated (Bard & Rioch, 1937). Further, a variety of expressive and visceral responses were obtained when the thalamus was electrically stimulated (Von Bechterev, 1911). Finally, patients with unilateral lesions in the thalamic regions were described as excessively sensing what were to others ordinary cutaneous stimulations. For example, a pin prick would elicit excruciating pain, warmth, intense delight, and so on (Head, 1920).

Probably more is known about the functions of these core thalamic portions of the brain than about any other. This stems in part from the fact that these mechanisms are relatively “peripheral” in the sense that they are relatively directly connected to the organism’s receptor mechanisms. In fact, some of these structures contain receptive elements sensitive to a variety of physical and chemical agents that circulate in the blood stream and cerebrospinal fluid. In addition, the core mechanisms exert considerable direct control over the agent to which they are sensitive. This control through feedback was termed “homeostasis” by Cannon and has proved to be a powerful conception in a variety of biological and engineering applications.

But of equal importance is the fact that the processes which are controlled by these mechanics are highly autonomous, that is, self-regulating. Visceral and endocrine regulation is performed with a light hand via two distinct portions of the autonomic nervous system, the sympathetic and the parasympathetic, which balance each other. Experimental evidence was accumulated, especially by Hess (1954), to demonstrate the existence in the hypothalamic region of a trophotropic, energy-conserving process, working primarily through the parasympathetic peripheral division of the autonomic nervous system, and an ergotrophic or mobilizing system, working through the sympathetic division.

The balance between ergo- and trophotropic is not static, of course. When tipped in one direction or the other, a temporary rebound or an “answering effect” (Fair, 1963) could occur as the balance was restored. And indeed both processes could be activated simultaneously so that they would, in effect, work additively. And this was not all. When such activation occurred, somatic, as well as visceral, musculature was involved.

An assumption that paralleled, if not actually guided, these studies was that an understanding of the organization of thalamically regulated processes would provide the key to an understanding of the organization of emotional processes. Once the thalamus and hypothalamus were identified as the neural substrata of emotions, this assumption followed logically.

But Lashley (1960) tellingly criticized the evidence on which this identity was assumed to rest. He pointed out that the type of disturbance on which the theory is based is as often seen to follow lesions elsewhere in the nervous system. “Hyperalgesia is not a result only of lesions within the thalamus but may arise from damage anywhere along the afferent path [p. 352].” He also raised the question of whether “emotional disturbance” in the true sense ever occurs with thalamic lesions: “In no case was the affect referred to the source of emotional stimulation … but always to sensations of somatic reaction to the stimulus [p. 351].” Lashley agrees that “in the hierarchy of motor centers we may recognize the thalamic region, especially the hypothalamus, as the region within which the complex patterns of expressive movements are elaborated. It does not follow from this, however, that the pathological phenomena of hyperexcitability of emotional reactions are due solely to release from cortical inhibition or that the thalamic motor center for expressive movement contributes to the emotional experience [p. 348].” Clearly, the dissociation between emotional expression and feeling, which is such a common clinical and experimental observation, can be leveled against both the James-Lange and Cannon-Bard theories. Unfortunately, Lashley provided no alternative to the theories he so effectively deprecates.

Recently, the James-Lange and the Cannon-Bard views have been superceded by the one proposed by Papez (1937) and elaborated by MacLean (1950). The earlier theories had been firmly based on the evidence that the hypothalamus and dorsal thalamus were at the apex of the hierarchy of control of visceral or autonomic functions. With the development of modern techniques for electrical brain stimulation, viscera were shown to be under the surveillance of the cerebral cortex (Kaada, Pribram & Epstein, 1949). One portion of this cortex came into focus for special attention: the limbic portion of the forebrain. Papez (1937) suggested that the anatomical interconnections among limbic structures were ideally constituted to handle the long-lasting, intense aspects of experience which are usually associated with emotion. MacLean added to this idea the facts of the relationship between this part of the brain and viscera, thus suggesting that here at last is the visceral brain—th...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Questions About Emotion: An Introduction
• Part I: Biological Approach
• Part II: Developmental Approaches
• Part III: Psychological and Ethological Approaches
• Part IV: Sociological and Anthropoligical Approaches
• Author Index
• Subject Index