Theories of emotion
The physiological arousal aspect of emotion has been responsible for many theoretical developments. The James–Lange theory of emotion has probably been referred to more than any other. It began with William James (1884) but was also propounded by Carl Lange (1885) and stressed the importance of physiological mechanisms in the perception of emotion. It is the following quotation from James (1884) that is most frequently cited: ‘the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the existing fact, and . . . our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion’ (1884, p. 189). This theory drew attention to bodily changes occurring in response to environmental events, and suggested that emotion is our feeling of the bodily changes that follow perception. This reverses the commonsense idea that we perceive something that causes the emotional experience, which, in turn, causes the bodily changes. As shown in figure 6.3, the primary processing of environmental information occurs from the sensory receptoro the cerebral cortex, after which information is relayed back and forth between the cerebral cortex and the viscera (internal organs) and musculature. According to the James–Lange framework, it is the interpretation of these bodily changes that represents the perception of emotion. The first and most vociferous opposition to the James–Lange theory came from Walter Cannon (1915, 1927, 1931, 1932) in what has come to be known as the Cannon–Bard theory of emotion. Cannon emphasized the physiological foundations of emotion, including the CNS, and particularly the thalamus (see figure 6.4). According to the Cannon–Bard framework, environmental information is first relayed from the sensory receptor to the thalamus, after which it is sent to the cerebral cortex and to the internal organs and skeletal muscles, and then back and forth between the cerebral cortex and thalamus. Note that there is no direct communication in this framework between the cerebral cortex and the viscera or muscles. Cannon also put forward some cogent criticisms of James’ theory.
The most important were that:
1. internal organs react too slowly to be a good source of information about emotional feelings;
2. a drug, whilst it might induce sympathetic arousal in the nervous system, does not in itself produce emotion (see our discussion of Maranon, later); and
3. bodily arousal patterns do not differ much from one emotion to the next.
This third point was certainly prophetic of the later lack of empirical success in finding clear, dissociable bodily response patterns in emotion.
Nevertheless, the psychophysiological analysis of peripheral mechanisms in emotion makes it abundantly clear that arousal is an integral part of emotion. It also seems that the various emotions might have some characteristic patterns of psychophysiological reactions associated with them. It is therefore possible that, as measurement techniques become more advanced in the future, patterns of psychophysiological responses might be found for the various emotions. But the current belief is that for any subtle emotional differentiation, cognitive mechanisms underlying emotion need to be directly addressed
The physiological arousal aspect of emotion has been responsible for many theoretical developments. The James–Lange theory of emotion has probably been referred to more than any other. It began with William James (1884) but was also propounded by Carl Lange (1885) and stressed the importance of physiological mechanisms in the perception of emotion. It is the following quotation from James (1884) that is most frequently cited: ‘the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the existing fact, and . . . our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion’ (1884, p. 189). This theory drew attention to bodily changes occurring in response to environmental events, and suggested that emotion is our feeling of the bodily changes that follow perception. This reverses the commonsense idea that we perceive something that causes the emotional experience, which, in turn, causes the bodily changes. As shown in figure 6.3, the primary processing of environmental information occurs from the sensory receptoro the cerebral cortex, after which information is relayed back and forth between the cerebral cortex and the viscera (internal organs) and musculature. According to the James–Lange framework, it is the interpretation of these bodily changes that represents the perception of emotion. The first and most vociferous opposition to the James–Lange theory came from Walter Cannon (1915, 1927, 1931, 1932) in what has come to be known as the Cannon–Bard theory of emotion. Cannon emphasized the physiological foundations of emotion, including the CNS, and particularly the thalamus (see figure 6.4). According to the Cannon–Bard framework, environmental information is first relayed from the sensory receptor to the thalamus, after which it is sent to the cerebral cortex and to the internal organs and skeletal muscles, and then back and forth between the cerebral cortex and thalamus. Note that there is no direct communication in this framework between the cerebral cortex and the viscera or muscles. Cannon also put forward some cogent criticisms of James’ theory.
The most important were that:
1. internal organs react too slowly to be a good source of information about emotional feelings;
2. a drug, whilst it might induce sympathetic arousal in the nervous system, does not in itself produce emotion (see our discussion of Maranon, later); and
3. bodily arousal patterns do not differ much from one emotion to the next.
This third point was certainly prophetic of the later lack of empirical success in finding clear, dissociable bodily response patterns in emotion.
Nevertheless, the psychophysiological analysis of peripheral mechanisms in emotion makes it abundantly clear that arousal is an integral part of emotion. It also seems that the various emotions might have some characteristic patterns of psychophysiological reactions associated with them. It is therefore possible that, as measurement techniques become more advanced in the future, patterns of psychophysiological responses might be found for the various emotions. But the current belief is that for any subtle emotional differentiation, cognitive mechanisms underlying emotion need to be directly addressed
No comments:
Post a Comment