| | It seems is all opinions at the moment - no accepted understanding across the board...
[from WIKI]
Based on discoveries made through neural mapping of the limbic system, the neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state organized in the limbic system of the mammalian brain. If distinguished from reactive responses of reptiles, emotions would then be mammalian elaborations of general vertebrate arousal patterns, in which neurochemicals (e.g., dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin) step-up or step-down the brain's activity level, as visible in body movements, gestures, and postures. In mammals, primates, and human beings, feelings are displayed as emotion cues.
For example, the human emotion of love is proposed to have evolved from paleocircuits of the mammalian brain (specifically, modules of the cingulate gyrus) which facilitate the care, feeding, and grooming of offspring. Paleocircuits are neural platforms for bodily expression configured millions of years before the advent of cortical circuits for speech. They consist of pre-configured pathways or networks of nerve cells in the forebrain, brain stem and spinal cord. They evolved prior to the earliest mammalian ancestors, as far back as the jawless fish, to control motor function.
Presumably, before the mammalian brain, life in the non-verbal world was automatic, preconscious, and predictable. The motor centers of reptiles react to sensory cues of vision, sound, touch, chemical, gravity, and motion with pre-set body movements and programmed postures. With the arrival of night-active mammals, circa 180 million years ago, smell replaced vision as the dominant sense, and a different way of responding arose from the olfactory sense, which is proposed to have developed into mammalian emotion and emotional memory. In the Jurassic Period, the mammalian brain invested heavily in olfaction to succeed at night as reptiles slept — one explanation for why olfactory lobes in mammalian brains are proportionally larger than in the reptiles. These odor pathways gradually formed the neural blueprint for what was later to become our limbic brain.
Emotions are thought to be related to activity in brain areas that direct our attention, motivate our behavior, and determine the significance of what is going on around us. Pioneering work by Broca (1878), Papez (1937), and MacLean (1952) suggested that emotion is related to a group of structures in the center of the brain called the limbic system, which includes the hypothalamus, cingulate cortex, hippocampi, and other structures. More recent research has shown that some of these limbic structures are not as directly related to emotion as others are, while some non-limbic structures have been found to be of greater emotional relevance.
[edit] Neurobiological Theories of Emotion: Prefrontal Cortex
There is ample evidence that the left prefrontal cortex is activated by stimuli that cause positive approach.[5] If attractive stimuli can selectively activate a region of the brain, then logically the converse should hold, that selective activation of that region of the brain should cause a stimulus to be judged more positively. This was demonstrated for moderately attractive visual stimuli[6] and replicated and extended to include negative stimuli.[7]
Two neurobiological models of emotion in the prefrontal cortex made opposing predictions. The Valence Model predicted that anger, a negative emotion, would activate the right prefrontal cortex. The Direction Model predicted that anger, an approach emotion, would activate the left prefrontal cortex. The second model was supported.[8]
This still left open the question of whether the opposite of approach in the prefrontal cortex is better described as moving away (Direction Model), as unmoving but with strength and resistance (Movement Model), or as unmoving with passive yielding (Action Tendency Model). Support for the Action Tendency Model (passivity related to right prefrontal activity) comes from research on shyness[9] and research on behavioral inhibition.[10] Research that tested the competing hypotheses generated by all four models also supported the Action Tendency Model.[11] [12]
[edit] Cognitive theories
There are some theories on emotions arguing that cognitive activity in the form of judgements, evaluations, or thoughts is necessary in order for an emotion to occur. This, argued by Richard Lazarus, is necessary to capture the fact that emotions are about something or have intentionality. Such cognitive activity may be conscious or unconscious and may or may not take the form of conceptual processing. An influential theory here is that of Lazarus. A prominent philosophical exponent is Robert C. Solomon (e.g. The Passions, Emotions and the Meaning of Life, 1993). The theory proposed by Nico Frijda where appraisal leads to action tendencies is another example. It has also been suggested that emotions (affect heuristics, feelings and gut-feeling reactions) are often used as shortcuts to process information and influence behaviour.[13]
[edit] Perceptual theory
A recent hybrid of the somatic and cognitive theories of emotion is the perceptual theory. This theory is neo-Jamesian in arguing that bodily responses are central to emotions, yet it emphasises the meaningfulness of emotions or the idea that emotions are about something, as is recognised by cognitive theories. The novel claim of this theory is that conceptually based cognition is unnecessary for such meaning. Rather the bodily changes themselves perceive the meaningful content of the emotion because of being causally triggered by certain situations. In this respect, emotions are held to be analogous to faculties such as vision or touch, which provide information about the relation between the subject and the world in various ways. A sophisticated defense of this view is found in philosopher Jesse Prinz's book Gut Reactions and psychologist James Laird's book Feelings.
[edit] Affective Events Theory
This a communication-based theory developed by Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano (1996), that looks at the causes, structures, and consequences of emotional experience (especially in work contexts.) This theory suggests that emotions are influenced and caused by events which in turn influence attitudes and behaviors. This theoretical frame also emphasizes time in that human beings experience what they call emotion episodes - a “series of emotional states extended over time and organized around an underlying theme”. This theory has been utilized by numerous researchers to better understand emotion from a communicative lens, and was reviewed further by Howard M. Weiss and Daniel J. Beal in their article, Reflections on Affective Events Theory published in Research on Emotion in Organizations in 2005.
[edit] Cannon-Bard theory
In the Cannon-Bard theory, Walter Bradford Cannon argued against the dominance of the James-Lange theory regarding the physiological aspects of emotions in the second edition of Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage. Where James argued that emotional behaviour often precedes or defines the emotion, Cannon and Bard argued that the emotion arises first and then stimulates typical behaviour.
[edit] Two-factor theory
Another cognitive theory is the Singer-Schachter theory. This is based on experiments purportedly showing that subjects can have different emotional reactions despite being placed into the same physiological state with an injection of adrenaline. Subjects were observed to express either anger or amusement depending on whether another person in the situation displayed that emotion. Hence the combination of the appraisal of the situation (cognitive) and the participants' reception of adrenaline or a placebo together determined the response. This experiment has been criticized in Jesse Prinz (2004) Gut Reactions.
[edit] Component process model
A recent version of the cognitive theory comes from which regards emotions more broadly as the synchronization of many different bodily and cognitive components. Emotions are identified with the overall process whereby low-level cognitive appraisals, in particular the processing of relevance, trigger bodily reactions, behaviors, feelings, and actions.
Perspectives on emotions from evolution theory were initiated in the late 19th century with Charles Darwin's book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals.[14] Darwin's original thesis was that emotions evolved via natural selection and therefore have cross-culturally universal counterparts. Furthermore, animals undergo emotions comparable to our own (see emotion in animals). Evidence of universality in the human case has been provided by Paul Ekman's seminal research on facial expression. Other research in this area focuses on physical displays of emotion including body language of animals and humans (see affect display). The increased potential in neuroimaging has also allowed investigation into evolutionarily ancient parts of the brain. Important neurological advances were made from these perspectives in the 1990s by, for example, Joseph E. LeDoux and António Damásio.
American evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers argues that moral emotions are based on the principal of reciprocal altruism. The notion of group selection is of particular relevance. This theory posits the different emotions have different reciprocal effects. Sympathy prompts a person to offer the first favor, particularly to someone in need for whom the help would go the furthest. Anger protects a person against cheaters who accept a favor without reciprocating, by making him want to punish the ingrate or sever the relationship. Gratitude impels a beneficiary to reward those who helped him in the past. Finally, guilt prompts a cheater who is in danger of being found out, by making them want to repair the relationship by redressing the misdeed. As well, guilty feelings encourage a cheater who has been caught to advertise or promise that he will behave better in the future.
Appraisal theory is the idea that emotions are extracted from our evaluations (appraisals) of events that cause specific reactions in different people. Essentially, our appraisal of a situation causes an emotional, or affective, response that is going to be based on that appraisal. An example of this is going on a first date. If the date is perceived as positive, one might feel happiness, joy, giddiness, excitement, and/or anticipation, because they have appraised this event as one that could have positive long term effects, i.e. starting a new relationship, engagement, or even marriage. On the other hand, if the date is perceived negatively, then our emotions, as a result, might include dejection, sadness, emptiness, or fear. (Scherer et al., 2001)[2]
Arousal is defined as “to rouse or stimulate to action or to physiological readiness for activity” (Merriam-Webster, 2007)[3]. According to Schachter and Singer (1962)[4] we can have arousal without emotion, but we cannot have an emotion without arousal. Essentially, humans injected with epinephrine without knowing the actual content of the injection, feel an increase in heart rate, sweating, and nervousness, but that doesn’t elicit an affective response. When the same physiological responses are paired with a contextual pretext, winning the lottery, for example, the state of arousal is appraised to mean extreme excitement, joy, and happiness. Without a context, we feel aroused, but cannot label it as an emotional response to a stimulus. If a context is present, we can evaluate our arousal in terms of that context, and thus an emotional response is present.
[edit] Why Appraisal Theory was developed (Scherer et al., 2001).[5]
Appraisal Theory came to be as an explanation for discrepancies with other theories such as: “(1) events themselves, as in stimulus-response theories (e.g., Watson, 1919); (2) physiological processes, such as patterns of neural activity in the brain (e.g., Cannon, 1927) or peripheral autonomic activity (e.g., James, 1894); (3) facial or other expressions (e.g., Tomkins, 1962) or behaviors such as attack and flight (James, 1890); and (4) motivational processes, as in hunger eliciting an infant's distress (Tomkins, 1962) or the desire to intimidate an opponent leading an individual to get angry (Parkinson, 1997b).” (Scherer et al., 2001)[6]. Essentially, Appraisal Theory is a functional explanation that answers questions where other theories fall short.
[edit] Intensity of Response and Variance
How can we account for varying emotional response and degree of response in a situation?
Early ideology began as one-dimensional view of affective response. With time, those theories were expanded to incorporate a positively and negatively valenced end which left only two polar ends of emotional response. Darwin (1872)[2] of that there are several distinct emotions (such as joy, sadness, fear, and anger), as manifest in different facial expressions observable across cultures. These similarities indicate that emotion is more universal than originally thought, and thus Appraisal Theory helps to explain the question of degree and affective variability.
[edit] Different Reaction in Similar Situations
How can we explain individual differences in affective responses to the same stimulus?
If not using Appraisal Theory to explain this phenomenon, a stimulus should cause the same reaction in every individual who encounters the stimulus. In terms of Appraisal Theory, an aroused state will elicit different responses from different people depending on the context preceding arousal. For example, if a friendship is coming to an end, one person might feel sadness, guilt, anger, while the other person could possibly feel relief and apathy. Based on each person’s view of the friendship, their affective response to a dissolution of the relationship will be viewed differently.
[edit] Different Stimuli and Similar Reactions
How can we account for the array of stimuli that cause a similar affective response?
There is no way to quantify all the stimuli that lead to a particular affective response. Any range of context, whether considered normal to produce a particular emotional outcome or not, can produce any emotion. More narrow theories cannot account for the discrepancies in response and stimuli, where Appraisal Theory can.
[edit] The Start of Affective Response
What begins the emotional response?
Appraisal Theory accounts for the fact that our affective responses aren’t pulled from thin air. A response to a stimulus is intensified within the context of a current situation. For example, if a person was to lose their mother, and a month later, lose an acquaintance, the emotional response to losing an acquaintance will be intensified by the context of having recently lost a parent, more so than if they had not recently lost a close loved one.
[edit] Role of effective Emotional Response
How can we explain the effectiveness of an affective response?
Based in Appraisal Theory, if we react in anger to a situation where anger would be a waste in energy, we are ineffectively coping.with the situation. Our emotional responses are highly evolved so they waste as little energy as possible while helping us to manage a situation.
[edit] When Affective Responses Seem Irrational
How do we explain the absurdity of emotions?
Appraisal Theory helps to clarify why irrational emotions are ok. Other theories that state that emotions function to help us achieve our goals, and we can stop them at any time, cannot explain these irrational affective responses. Appraisal Theory, instead, is used as an explanation for how illogical emotions can be disruptive, but does not try to justify them.
[edit] Varieties of Appraisal Theory
[edit] Structural v. Process Oriented Models of Appraisal Theory
Most models currently advanced are more concerned with structure or contents of appraisals than with process oriented appraisal. “These models attempt to specify the evaluations that initiate specific emotional reactions. Examination of these models indicates that although there is significant overlap [between the two types of structural models], there are also differences: in which appraisals are included; how particular appraisals are operationalized; which emotions are encompassed by a model; and which particular combinations of appraisals are proposed to elicit a particular emotional response.” (Scherer et al., 2001)[2]. Ultimately, structurally based appraisals rely on the idea that our appraisals cultivate the emotional responses. Process-oriented models of appraisal theory are rooted in the idea that it is important to specify the cognitive principles and operations underlying these appraisal modes. Using this orientation for evaluating appraisals, we find fewer issues with repression, a “mental process by which distressing thoughts, memories, or impulses that may give rise to anxiety are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious” (Merriam-Webster, 2007)[7], misattribution of arousal (Schachter and Singer, 1962)[6].
[edit] Molecular v. Molar Oriented Models of Appraisal Theory
Molecular models of appraisal theory deal specifically with components of a specific appraisal and their effects in the ensuing emotion. Molar models are more focused on core relational themes that are the corner stone of certain sets of appraisals that give rise to a very specific emotion. “For example, Smith and Lazarus (1993) describe the important appraisal components of sadness as motivational relevance, motivational incongruence, low (problem focused) coping potential, and low future expectancy; and the core relational theme for sadness is irrevocable loss.” [2](Scherer et al., 2001). Essentially, Molecular models break each smaller component of an appraisal down to study and correlate the elements to the resultant emotion. Molar models, unlike molecular models, look at the appraisal as a whole.
[edit] Fixed v. Flexible Appraisal Order
For the discussion of fixed versus flexible appraisal order, there are three distinct outlooks on the process. On one end of the spectrum, Scherer (1984a) believes that appraisals fall within a “fixed sequence with novelty and intrinsic pleasantness (the simplest appraisals, based almost wholly on characteristics of the stimulus situation) coming first and second in the sequence, followed in order by the more complex appraisals of goal/need conduciveness, coping potential, and norm/self compatibility, in that order”[8]. An opposite outlook would include the works of Lazarus and Smith to include the belief in a more flexible appraisal order where the appraisal process occurs on a more continuous basis. Specifically, memories of past experiences evoke a recollection of appraisal processes leading to the appraisal order for these past events to be used automatically without having a fixed sequence of appraisal that the mind must cognitively process[9]. Somewhere in the middle is Ellsworth (1991) who follows suit with Scherer with the necessity of novelty and intrinsic pleasantness coming first in the appraisal process by focusing on the situational stimulus in which then induces the appraisal. However, after this first initial appraisal, there is room for flexibility with the rest of the process. Overall, it seems that the cognitive processes and the interpretation are at the heart of this debate[10].
[edit] Continuous v. Categorical Nature of Appraisal and Emotion
Within the continuous versus categorical nature of appraisal and emotion, there are many standpoints of the flow of this appraisal process. To begin, Roseman’s (1996) model shows that appraisal information “can vary continuously but categorical boundaries determine which emotion will occur”[10]. Motive consistency and inconsistency make up an example of this categorical framework. A positive or negative emotional response in conjunction with the affect has much to do with the appraisal and the amount of motivational consistency. To accurately understand this concept, an example of Roseman’s model could come from a motive-consistent goal as it is caused by the self and someone else to reach one’s objective in which a positive emotion is created from the specific appraisal event [10]. In addition, Scherer’s (1984) model shows that most appraisal falls in a continuous spectrum in which points along the way represent distinct emotional points made possible from the appraisal. Between appraisal space and number of emotions experienced, these two components are both positively correlated. “According to Scherer (1984a), the major categorical labels we used to describe our emotional experiences reflect a somewhat crude attempt to highlight and describe the major or most important ways these emotional experiences vary”[11]. With so much variation and levels within one’s emotions, it can be seen as injustice to the emotional experience and the appraisal process to limit oneself to such categories. To solve the problem between categorical and continuous appraisal order, it may be a good idea to place discrete emotional categories (i.e. happiness, sadness, etc.) within categories while continuous models represent the varieties, styles, and levels of these already defined distinct emotions [11].
[edit] History of Appraisal Theory
For the past several decades, appraisal theory has developed and evolved as a prominent theory in the field of communication and psychology by testing affect and emotion. In history, the most basic ideology dates back to the some of the most notable philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Spinoza and Hume, and even early German psychologist Stumph (Reisenzein & Schonpflug, 1992)[12]. However, in the past fifty years, this theory has expanded exponentially with the dedication of two prominent researchers: Magda Arnold and Richard Lazarus.
[edit] Magda Arnold
Dating back to the 1940’s and 1950’s, Magda Arnold took an avid interest in researching the appraisal of emotions accompanying general arousal. Specifically, Arnold wanted to “introduce the idea of emotion differentiation by postulating that emotions such as fear, anger, and excitement could be distinguished by different excitatory phenomena” (Arnold, 1950)[13]. With these new ideas, she developed her “cognitive theory” in the 1960’s, which specified that the first step in emotion is an appraisal of the situation [14]. According to Arnold, the initial appraisals start the emotional sequence and arouse both the appropriate actions and the emotional experience itself, so that the physiological changes, recognized as important, accompany, but do not initiate, the actions and experiences (Arnold, 1960a)[15]. A notable advancement was Arnold’s idea of intuitive appraisal in which she describes emotions that are good or bad for the person lead to an action. For example, if a student studies hard all semester in a difficult class and passes the tough mid-term exam with an “A”, the felt emotion of happiness will motivate the student to keep studying hard for that class.
Emotion is a difficult concept to define as emotions are constantly changing for each individual, but Arnold’s continued advancements and changing theory led her to keep researching her work within appraisal theory. Furthermore, the 1970’s proved to be difficult as fellow researchers challenged her theory with questions concerning the involvement of psycho physiological factors and the psychological experiences at the Loyola Symposium on Feelings and Emotions [16]. Despite this and re-evaluating the theory, Arnold’s discoveries paved the way for other researchers to learn about variances of emotion, affect, and their relation to each other.
[edit] Richard Lazarus
Following close to Magda Arnold in terms of appraisal theory examination was Richard Lazarus who continued to research emotions through appraisal theory before his passing in 2002. Since he began researching in the 1950’s, this concept evolves and expands to include new research, methods, and procedures. Although Arnold had a difficult time which questions, Lazarus and other researchers discussed the biopsychological components of the theory at the Loyola Symposium (“Towards a Cognitive Theory of Emotion”)[17].
Specifically, he identified two essential factors in an essay in which he discusses the cognitive aspects of emotion: “first, what is the nature of the cognitions (or appraisals) which underlie separate emotional reactions (e.g. fear, guilt, grief, joy, etc.). Second, what are the determining antecedent conditions of these cognitions.” (Lazarus, Averill, & Opton (1970, p. 219)[17] These two aspects are absolutely crucial in defining the reactions that stem from the initial emotions that underlie the reactions. Moreover, Lazarus specified two major types of appraisal methods which sit at the crux of the appraisal method: 1) primary appraisal, directed at the establishment of the significance or meaning of the event to the organism, and 2) secondary appraisal, directed at the assessment of the ability of the organism to cope with the consequences of the event[17]. These two types go hand in hand as one establishes the importance of the event while the following assesses the coping mechanisms which Lazarus divided up into two parts: direct actions and cognitive reappraisal processes.
To simplify Lazarus’s theory and emphasize his stress on cognition, as you are experiencing an event, your thought must precede the arousal and emotion (which happen simultaneously)[18]. For example: You are about to give a speech in front of 50 of your peers. Your mouth goes dry, your heart beat quickens, your palms sweat, and your legs begin to shake and at the same time you experience fear.
For continued appraisal theory research, researchers such as Phoebe Ellsworth, Ira Roseman, Craig Smith, Klaus Scherer, and Nico Frijda have made significant progress from the 1980’s until today.
[edit] Testing Appraisal Theory
In respect to appraisal theory, Stanley Schachter’s contributions should also be noted as his studies supported the relevance of emotion induced in appraisal. In one of the most interesting experiments in the 20th century, Schachter and his student Jerome Singer devised an experiment to explain the physiological and psychological factors in emotional appraising behaviors. By inducing an experimental group with epinephrine while maintaining a control group, they were able to test two emotions: euphoria and anger. Using a stooge to elicit a response, the research proved three major findings relevant to appraisal:
1. Both cognitive and physiological factors contribute to emotion; 2. Under certain circumstances cognition follows physiological arousal; and 3. People assess their emotional state, in part, by observing how physiologically stirred up they are (Schachter & Singer, 1962)[19]
By taking into account heightened emotion, reaction to the stooge, as well as prompted questions, all these elicited factors provide a negative or positive affect. Although the study took place in 1962, it is still studied in both psychology and communication fields today as an example of appraisal theory in relation to affect and emotion.
Through these findings, Schachter and Singer assess that an event happens which in turn elicits as physiological arousal. From the reasoning of the arousal, you are then able to have an emotion[18]. For example: You are about to give a speech. You approach the podium and look out into the audience as your mouth goes dry, your heart beat quickens, your palms sweat, and your legs begin to shake. From this arousal, you understand you feel this way because you are about to give a speech in front of 50 of your peers. This feeling causes anxiety and you experience the emotion of fear.
[edit] Modern Appraisal Theories of Emotion
Many current theories of emotion now place the appraisal component of emotion at the forefront in defining and studying emotional experience. However, most contemporary psychologists who study emotion accept a working definition acknowledging that emotion is not just appraisal but a complex multifaceted experience with the following components:
1. Cognitive Appraisal. Only events are judged or appraised to have significance for our goals, concerns, values, needs, preferences, or well-being elicit emotion.
2. Subjective feelings. The appraisal is accompanied by feelings that are good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, calm or aroused.
3. Physiological arousal. Emotions are accompanied by autonomic nervous system activity.
4. Expressive behaviors. Emotion is communicated through facial and bodily expressions, postural and voice changes.
5. Action tendencies. Emotions carry behavioral intentions, and the readiness to act in certain ways.[20]
|
|
