Emotions are intricate psychological phenomena encompassing various elements, including thoughts, feelings, physiological responses, expressive behaviors, and inclinations to act. The specific combination of these components can vary from one emotion to another, and emotions may or may not manifest in overt behaviors. Emotions are typically triggered by an event, whether experienced in the moment or recalled from memory.
For example, consider the emotion of anger. If someone insults you, your perception of the intent behind the insult and the nature of the insult itself can lead to feelings of anger or annoyance. Anger may be accompanied by physiological changes like a flushed face, a racing heart, clenched fists, and thoughts of retribution. In some cases, you may take action against the person who insulted you. Even days later, recalling the insult can rekindle some of the original emotional reactions.
There are several well-defined emotions, such as fear, joy, love, disgust, and sadness, each with its own characteristic features. However, emotions can also be less clear-cut. Some emotions may not always result in changes in physiological or motivational states, and they may not always lead to behavioral alterations. Take the example of regret. After making a decision or taking an action that leads to unfavorable outcomes, you may experience strong regret. However, this subjective feeling of regret may not necessarily be accompanied by physiological changes or behavioral shifts.
Additional complexities arise when considering psychological states that seem to border on the concept of emotion. These include physical pain, generalized anxiety, sexual arousal, boredom, depression, and irritability, all of which can be viewed as affective states. Psychologists who specialize in the study of emotions often draw a distinction between affective states that have a clear object or target and those that do not. They argue that the term “emotion” should be reserved for psychological states with a clear object. For instance, sexual arousal, with its clear focus on a specific object or situation, may be categorized as an emotional state. In contrast, chronic pain, generalized boredom, depression, or irritability, which may lack a clear object, might not be classified as emotions. This distinction separates emotions from moods (e.g., irritability, boredom) and affective dispositions (depression, generalized anxiety).
It’s important to note that arriving at precise definitions of what constitutes an emotion can be challenging. The boundaries of emotions often blur with other psychological states, including beliefs, attitudes, values, moods, and personality traits. Nevertheless, there is a consensus among theorists that emotions are defined by clear exemplars like anger, fear, and passionate love. When dealing with states that exist at the fuzzy boundary between emotions and neighboring states, psychologists generally prioritize the characteristics and manifestations of the state over the strict categorization of whether it qualifies as an emotion. This pragmatic approach acknowledges the complexity of defining emotions while focusing on the key examples that help us understand this intricate facet of human psychology.
Emotions History and Background
Modern emotion theory has deep historical roots, often traced back to the writings of two prominent figures in the late 19th century: Charles Darwin and William James. Their insights continue to shape contemporary research and debates on emotions, even nearly 150 years later.
Charles Darwin: In the latter half of the 19th century, Charles Darwin made significant contributions to our understanding of emotions, particularly in the context of their relation to overt behavior. Darwin proposed three key principles to explain the connection between emotions and expressive behavior. The principle most commonly associated with Darwin’s explanations for expressive behavior is the “principle of serviceable associated habits.” According to this principle, facial movements and expressions that originally served a purpose during emotional experiences have become automatic accompaniments of those emotions over time. For instance, the frowning that often accompanies anger might have evolved as a way to protect the eye socket by drawing the brows forward and together. Similarly, the widening of the eyes during surprise may help individuals take in more visual information when sudden, novel events occur.
Interestingly, despite his more famous contributions to the theory of evolution, Darwin did not initially treat emotional expression as the outcome of natural selection. Instead, he viewed the link between emotion and expression as a learned habit passed down through generations. However, modern evolutionary theory has since been applied to this issue, resulting in the perspective that emotions became outwardly expressed due to their adaptive significance for the individual or the group. This viewpoint suggests that emotions with expressive behaviors conferred survival and reproductive advantages, leading to their preservation in human evolution. The idea that there is a close relationship between emotional experience and bodily expression is a concept that resonates with contemporary emotion theory.
William James: William James, another influential thinker of the time, contributed to modern emotion theory by proposing the James-Lange theory of emotions. This theory suggests that physiological responses precede emotional experiences, implying that individuals interpret their bodily reactions to stimuli as specific emotions. For example, according to this theory, the racing heart and sweaty palms experienced during a frightening event lead a person to interpret these bodily responses as fear. James’s theory challenged the traditional view that emotions were solely the result of subjective experiences and introduced the idea that physiological responses played a central role in emotional processes.
In summary, the foundations of modern emotion theory were laid by Charles Darwin and William James in the 19th century. Their insights into the relation between emotions, expressive behavior, and physiological responses continue to shape contemporary research and understanding of human emotions. While their views have evolved and integrated with more recent theories, their pioneering work remains a cornerstone of the field.
William James made significant contributions to our understanding of emotion, advocating what is known as a peripheral theory of emotion. According to this theory, the perception of an arousing stimulus leads to changes in peripheral organs, such as the heart, lungs, stomach, and voluntary muscles. James posited that emotion is essentially the perception of these bodily changes. In other words, people do not tremble and run because they are afraid; instead, they are afraid because they tremble and run. James proposed a direct link between perception and bodily change, likening it to a lock and key mechanism, where the perception of emotion-arousing stimuli automatically triggers physiological changes in the body. It is the perception of these changes that constitutes the experience of emotion.
James’s ideas highlighted the close connection between perception and emotion, largely bypassing conscious cognition. This notion of an immediate link between emotional perception and bodily changes continues to be a prominent feature in modern emotion theory. The concept that alterations in peripheral bodily activity can lead to changes in emotional experience remains a central theme in contemporary research on emotions.
Magda Arnold’s Appraisal Theory: In the 1960s, with the advent of cognitivism, Magda Arnold introduced the appraisal theory of emotion. This theory shifted the focus from bodily changes to cognitive processes as the primary determinants of emotions. Arnold argued that what triggers emotional experiences is not the bodily changes per se, but rather the cognitive evaluation process that determines whether a stimulus is emotionally arousing or emotionally neutral. She emphasized that an emotionally arousing stimulus is one that holds personal significance and matters to individuals. In essence, unless a stimulus holds meaning and importance for an individual, it will not evoke an emotional response. This view underscores the subjectivity of emotional experiences, as what matters to one person may not matter to another.
Appraisal theory shifted the emphasis from objective properties of emotional stimuli to the subjective processes by which individuals attach meaning and significance to these stimuli. In modern emotion theory, there is a strong focus on understanding these processes of meaning-making and appraisal as central factors in the experience of emotions.
In summary, these three foundational sources of influence on modern emotion theory—James’s peripheral theory, the emphasis on physiological activity, and Arnold’s appraisal theory—correspond to key components of emotions: expression, physiological responses, and cognitive processes. These components continue to be essential aspects of contemporary research on emotions and their role in human psychology. Understanding how these components interact and contribute to the emotional experience is a central goal in the study of emotions.
Social Psychology and Emotions
Emotions are a central topic within various subdisciplines of psychology, including clinical psychology, biological psychology, and developmental psychology. However, it is notable that social psychologists have played a significant role in the study of emotions, despite emotions being a broad and multi-faceted phenomenon.
While some emotions, such as fear of heights or snakes, may appear unrelated to social interactions, they do not represent the typical range of emotions that people experience in their daily lives. Emotions, by their nature, are directed toward something—they have an object. This object is often social in nature, such as a person, a social group, a social event, or a cultural artifact. Social objects are more likely to be the source of everyday emotions than nonsocial objects.
Moreover, many emotions are inherently or functionally social. Some emotions rely on the presence of others, like compassion, sympathy, and affection, which require someone else to be present. Others, like fear of rejection, loneliness, and jealousy, are closely tied to social relationships and their maintenance. Emotions often serve to strengthen social bonds or navigate social interactions.
Additionally, when individuals experience emotions, they have a strong inclination to share these emotions with others. Research on the social sharing of emotion has shown that most emotional experiences are shared with others, often several individuals, and typically shortly after the triggering event. Sharing emotions with others can evoke emotional reactions in the listeners, a phenomenon known as secondary social sharing. This highlights the social and interpersonal nature of emotions, as well as their ripple effect within social networks.
In summary, emotions are inherently linked to social experiences. They often revolve around social objects, serve social functions, and have social consequences. Social psychology, as a field, frequently deals with emotional topics, including close relationships, aggression, altruism, prejudice, and attitudes, all of which involve emotional concepts and processes. This inherent connection between emotion and social psychology explains the significant contributions that social psychologists have made to the study of emotions.
The section will now delve into modern developments in research on the three components of emotion—physiological changes, cognitions, and expressive behaviors.
Modern developments in research on the three components of emotion—physiological changes, cognitions, and expressive behaviors—in greater detail.
- Physiological Changes: Modern research in the physiological aspect of emotions has expanded our understanding of how emotions are linked to bodily responses. This field involves studying the neural and physiological processes associated with various emotions. Advances in neuroscience and technology, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), have allowed researchers to pinpoint the brain regions and networks involved in emotional experiences.For example, researchers have identified specific brain structures, such as the amygdala, that play a crucial role in processing emotional stimuli, particularly fear-related stimuli. They have also discovered that different emotions are associated with distinct patterns of neural activity. Understanding the neural basis of emotions has significant implications for treating emotional disorders and enhancing emotional well-being.
- Cognitions: Contemporary research on the cognitive aspect of emotions delves into the complex processes through which individuals interpret and make sense of their emotional experiences. This involves examining the role of appraisal, attribution, and cognitive biases in shaping emotional responses.Appraisal theory, influenced by Magda Arnold’s work, emphasizes that the subjective meaning people attach to events or situations is a key determinant of their emotional responses. Researchers explore the various dimensions of appraisal, such as relevance, goal congruence, and coping potential, to understand why people experience different emotions in response to similar events.
Additionally, studies on cognitive biases in emotion have revealed how individuals’ thought patterns can influence their emotional experiences. For instance, research on cognitive reappraisal techniques has demonstrated that people can modulate their emotional reactions by changing their appraisals of a situation.
- Expressive Behaviors: Modern research on expressive behaviors continues to explore how emotions are conveyed through facial expressions, body language, and vocal cues. Advances in computer vision and machine learning have enabled the development of automated systems capable of recognizing and interpreting emotional expressions in real-time.Cross-cultural studies have shed light on the universality of certain emotional expressions, such as smiles indicating happiness or furrowed brows signaling anger. Researchers have also examined the role of cultural and contextual factors in shaping expressive behaviors and their interpretation.
In the digital age, social media platforms provide a wealth of data for studying how individuals express and communicate their emotions online. Analyzing text, emojis, and other digital cues has become a valuable tool for understanding how emotions are shared and expressed in virtual environments.
In summary, modern research on the components of emotions has expanded our knowledge of how emotions are generated, experienced, and expressed. These multidisciplinary approaches, incorporating insights from neuroscience, psychology, computer science, and cultural studies, have enriched our understanding of the complex interplay between emotions and human behavior. As technology and research methodologies continue to evolve, we can expect even more nuanced and comprehensive insights into the fascinating world of emotions.
Emotions and Physiological Change
The theory of emotion proposed by James, as mentioned earlier, places a significant emphasis on physiological changes as a central component of emotions. James argued that imagining perceiving an emotional stimulus without accompanying bodily changes would result in a pale and incomplete imitation of the true emotional experience. This perspective appears particularly valid when examining emotions like fear and anger. Stripping away the physiological changes that accompany these emotions raises questions about what such experiences would entail.
However, James’s approach presents several potential issues. One of them revolves around the fact that the rich diversity of emotion terms in English and other languages doesn’t necessarily correspond to an equally diverse range of distinguishable patterns of physiological activity during emotions. Walter Cannon raised this concern and focused on visceral changes in organs like the heart, distinct from changes in voluntary muscles like those in the face or limbs. Another challenge Cannon highlighted is that visceral changes tend to occur relatively slowly, while emotional reactions can be swift. If emotions were the perception of bodily changes, how could they match the rapidity of emotional experiences?
Stanley Schachter took these considerations into account when developing his two-factor theory of emotion. Schachter’s previous research had explored how individuals feeling anxious and uncertain preferred the company of others in similar situations, suggesting that social context plays a crucial role in helping people interpret their internal states. Rather than each subjectively distinguishable emotion having a specific pattern of bodily change, Schachter proposed that bodily changes primarily energize emotions. In this view, physiological arousal is necessary but not sufficient for experiencing emotions. Cognition, the second factor in Schachter’s theory, labels the general state of arousal. Therefore, the same physiological arousal could be interpreted differently, leading to distinct emotional experiences.
Despite its elegance, the two-factor theory didn’t receive enough experimental support to remain as influential as it was in the 1970s and early 1980s. Nevertheless, one enduring proposition is that people can misattribute the cause of their arousal. For example, believing that they have ingested a tranquilizer (a placebo with no actual tranquilizing effect) can lead individuals to overattribute their arousal to the most plausible source. This can affect attitude change, particularly when it involves reducing cognitive dissonance.
While Cannon’s critique of James and Schachter’s theory centered on autonomic nervous system arousal, it’s worth noting that bodily change encompasses more than just heart rate, mouth dryness, or hand tremors—perceptible signs of autonomic nervous system arousal. James’s theory also considered the activity of voluntary muscles, evident in his assertion that we feel angry because we strike. This aspect of James’s theory inspired researchers to investigate how manipulating the feedback individuals receive from their facial or postural muscles affects their emotional experiences. Studies have shown, for instance, that people find humorous stimuli more amusing if they smile during exposure, perceive painful stimuli as more noxious with negative facial expressions, and feel more dejected with a stooped posture. Modern research thus supports an aspect of James’s theory, suggesting that the perception of bodily change moderates the experience of emotion rather than serving as its sole mediator.
Cognition and Emotions
While cognition played a central role in Schachter’s two-factor theory, its role differs from how it’s viewed in appraisal theories of emotion. In Schachter’s theory, cognition’s role was to label pre-existing arousal. In appraisal theory, cognition serves to interpret the significance and meaning of ongoing emotional events. Consider hearing a strange noise from your ground-floor kitchen in the middle of the night. According to appraisal theorists, the sense you make of this event through appraisal processes determines whether and how you will respond emotionally. Interpreting the noise as the result of a human intruder will evoke different emotions than interpreting it as caused by your cat or the wind. Additionally, your belief in your ability to cope with potential threats to your well-being influences your emotional response. A young, physically able person may feel less threatened in such situations compared to an elderly or disabled individual. Appraisal theory, summarized by Nico Frijda’s law of situational meaning, asserts that emotions stem from the meanings people attribute to situations. If the meaning changes, so too does the emotion (e.g., from fear to relief when realizing the noise is your cat).
It’s important to note that the term “appraisal theory” may suggest a single unified theory, but there are various appraisal theories, all sharing the view that emotions arise from cognitive appraisals. Differences lie in how this common assumption is incorporated into comprehensive theoretical frameworks. Some theorists, like Richard Lazarus, emphasize a limited set of core relational themes, which are clusters of configured appraisals defining the essence of an emotion. For example, irrevocable loss holistically defines sadness, while other blame holistically defines anger. These core relational themes are valuable as they capture the crucial relational meaning of a situation, predictive of physiological and behavioral changes. Alternatively, theorists like Frijda underscore the action tendencies that appraisals imply. Even if individuals don’t act on these action tendencies, the perceived inclination to aggress, retreat, freeze, cry, laugh, etc., constitutes a significant part of the emotional experience. Some theorists, such as Klaus Scherer, emphasize the temporal dimension of appraisal, viewing it as a sequential process, starting with basic checks like novelty, pleasantness, and expectancy and progressing to more complex assessments regarding personal or social norms.
There’s substantial evidence showing that individual emotions are associated with distinct appraisals or appraisal patterns, supporting the propositions of appraisal theorists. However, limited evidence demonstrates causal links between appraisals and emotions. This raises the question of whether appraisals are causes, constituents, or consequences of emotions, a matter of critical importance. Robert Zajonc’s critique challenges appraisal theory, suggesting that affective reactions (e.g., liking, approaching, disliking, avoiding) often precede cognitive reactions (e.g., beneficial or detrimental to one’s goals), implying that cognitive processes may not mediate these emotional reactions due to their rapidity. Zajonc’s argument is bolstered by evidence indicating that individuals can evaluate stimuli without conscious awareness, as seen in the mere exposure effect, further questioning the necessity of appraising stimuli before emotional responses.
A compromise stance regarding the role of cognitive appraisal in emotions acknowledges multiple routes to emotional responses. For instance, consider fear: modern animal and clinical research reveals two distinct brain pathways for triggering fear. One pathway is cortically mediated, involving appraisal processes, while the other is mediated by the amygdala, suggesting a fast response, beneficial in predator-prey situations. While this two-route argument fits well for emotions like fear, which have clear implications for survival, it may be less applicable to emotions like guilt. However, even in cases like guilt, there’s ongoing debate about the necessity of the appraisal commonly assumed by theorists, such as perceived responsibility for harm to another. Roy Baumeister, for instance, contends that the root cause of guilt is the loss of love in a valued relationship, and those experiencing this loss feel guilty, subsequently feeling responsible for the hurt experienced by the other party in the relationship.
As we delve further into the intricate relationship between cognition and emotions, it’s important to recognize the dynamic and multifaceted nature of this connection. While various theories offer insights into the interplay between cognitive processes and emotional experiences, it’s essential to understand that the nature of this relationship can vary across different emotional states and individuals.
One fascinating aspect of cognition in emotion is its role in shaping emotional memories. Our ability to remember emotional events is not only influenced by the intensity of our emotional reactions but also by the cognitive processes that occur during the event. Studies in psychology have shown that our memory of emotionally charged events can be colored by the way we interpret, appraise, and process the information at the time. This means that our cognitive appraisals during an emotional experience can significantly impact how we remember and recall that experience later.
For instance, consider a joyful celebration with friends. If during this event, you have a positive interpretation of the situation, focusing on the love and camaraderie, your memory of that event will likely be imbued with feelings of happiness and nostalgia. On the other hand, if you have negative cognitive appraisals during the same celebration, perhaps dwelling on past conflicts or anxieties about the future, your memory of the event may be tainted with mixed emotions or even sadness.
Moreover, our cognitive processes, including attention and memory, can be selective and biased during emotional states. This phenomenon, known as emotional primacy, suggests that emotional information often takes precedence in our cognitive processing. For instance, if you’re feeling intense anger or fear, your attention may become hyper-focused on threats or perceived injustices while filtering out neutral or positive information. This emotional bias in cognition can have profound effects on decision-making, problem-solving, and interpersonal interactions.
Another intriguing area of research explores the impact of cognitive reappraisal on emotional regulation. Cognitive reappraisal involves consciously changing the way we think about a situation to influence our emotional responses. This technique has been shown to be effective in modulating emotions. By altering the cognitive appraisal of a situation, individuals can manage and regulate their emotional reactions. For example, when facing a challenging task, someone might reframe their thoughts from “This is overwhelming” to “This is an opportunity to learn and grow,” thereby reducing anxiety and increasing motivation.
In conclusion, the intricate relationship between cognition and emotions continues to be a subject of fascination and exploration within psychology. While cognitive processes can shape our emotional experiences, emotions, in turn, influence our cognitive functioning. This intricate interplay underscores the complexity and richness of human emotions, as well as the dynamic nature of our cognitive responses to the ever-changing emotional landscape. As research in this field advances, our understanding of the mind’s intricate workings and the profound influence of emotions on our thoughts and behaviors deepens, offering valuable insights for personal growth, mental health, and interpersonal relationships.
Expression and Emotions
It is obvious that emotions can be expressed in the face and other parts of the body. If someone is intensely angry, sad, afraid, or surprised, others are likely to be able to see signs of the emotion in question in that person’s face. The outward expression of inner emotional experience is, of course, of particular interest to social psychologists because it affords others the opportunity to understand how someone is feeling without this person needing to explain the feeling in words. It is sometimes argued that the nonverbal means of communicating emotion are more important and effective than the verbal means. Clearly, this is true of interpersonal communication whereby one or both persons are unable to communicate verbally, because they are prelingual (as in the case of infants) or deaf or simply unable either to speak or to hear each other because of the context (as in a silent Trappist Order or in noisy working environments). It is known that babies are especially interested in faces and that there is a tendency for humans to mimic each other’s nonverbal behaviors. People tend to like other people more when others mimic them in this way. To the extent that people do what others do, facially and posturally, and to the extent that feedback from the face and from body posture moderates their emotional experience, it is likely that people come to feel what others are feeling, thereby strengthening understanding of and bonding with those others. However, all of this depends to an important degree on the extent to which subjective experience of emotion translates into overt expression. It may well be obvious that there are conditions under which this does happen, but it is also obvious that people are capable of appearing to feel one thing when they really feel something else. To avoid giving offense, people pretend to like things that they do not; actors pretend to feel things that they do not so as to produce a convincing portrayal of a character in a particular setting. To what extent is bodily behavior a reliable reflection of someone’s emotional state? Paul Ekman and his colleagues have tested the notion that there is a close relation between emotion and facial behavior, which is what Ekman’s notion of a facial affect program, a hardwired system linking experienced emotion to facial behavior, would predict. Their research program employs two kinds of methods. The first is based on Darwin’s idea that the ways in which emotions are expressed are universal and therefore independent of culture. To provide more scientific support for this idea than Darwin had been able to muster, Ekman and colleagues took photographs of faces that were recognized by Westerners as clearly expressing certain emotions, and they showed these to persons in a variety of other cultures. The most telling studies are those conducted in preliterate cultures, such as the highlands of Papua New Guinea. What the researchers found was that members of tribes living in these remote cultures, who had had little exposure to Westerners or to Western media images, could match the photographs to short stories of an emotional nature in ways that showed that they broadly understood the emotional meaning of the faces. This is taken as evidence that emotions are expressed facially in the same way across the world: How else could researchers account for the ability of those living in isolated cultures to attribute the same meaning to faces as Westerners do? However, it is important to recognize that these findings relate to a limited set of emotional expressions—happy, sad, angry, afraid, disgusted, and surprised—and that the stimuli used in this type of research are still photos taken at the apex of an extreme, iconic version of an expression. It is also worth noting that although members of remote tribes could match the photos to emotional stories with above-chance accuracy, their performance on average tends to be worse than that of their Western counterparts. Bearing in mind that the expressions they are asked to judge in these studies are of Western faces, this raises the possibility that people may be better at recognizing emotions in own ethnicity faces than in other ethnicity faces. Recent research suggests that this is the case, pointing to the existence of emotional dialects that are easier for persons who are familiar with the dialect to decode.
The expression of emotions, especially through facial expressions, serves as a powerful channel for human communication. It allows individuals to convey their inner emotional states to others, providing valuable social signals without the need for explicit verbal communication. The universality of certain facial expressions has been a subject of extensive research, shedding light on the cross-cultural recognition of emotions.
Paul Ekman and his colleagues have conducted pioneering studies in this field, seeking to validate the idea that specific facial expressions are universally associated with certain emotions. Their research has encompassed diverse cultures, including remote and preliterate societies, to examine whether people from different backgrounds can recognize and attribute the same emotional meanings to facial expressions. The results have indicated that, to a significant extent, emotions are indeed expressed facially in a consistent manner across various cultures.
For example, an expression of happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust, and surprise, when captured in photographs, tends to convey similar emotional meanings to individuals from different cultures. Even among those with minimal exposure to Western culture and media, the ability to recognize these basic emotions from facial expressions has been demonstrated. This suggests a level of universality in the language of emotions expressed through the face.
However, it’s important to consider some nuances and limitations of this research. The emotional expressions studied are typically those of Western faces, which may imply that people are more proficient at recognizing emotions in individuals of their own ethnicity. Recent studies have supported this idea, revealing the existence of emotional dialects that facilitate emotion recognition among individuals who share a cultural and ethnic background.
Ekman and his colleagues have undertaken a second line of research, which directly explores whether different emotions are accompanied by discernible differences in facial expressions. Within this research stream, the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) has been instrumental—a comprehensive system devised by Ekman in collaboration with Wallace Friesen to meticulously encode all observable facial movements. Notably, studies in this domain have revealed that emotions such as happiness and disgust, when induced through film clips, elicit distinct facial expressions. While this finding may seem straightforward, it has sparked debate within the academic literature.
Some researchers have conducted experiments using various stimuli, including films, to induce emotional states, with surprise being a recent example. Surprisingly, they have failed to observe the expected distinctive facial actions, such as brow-raising, eye-widening, and jaw-dropping, that would support the idea of a universal facial affect program. On the contrary, others have raised doubts about the assumption that there exists a close link between emotions and facial expressions. They argue that facial actions evolved to convey intentions or motives to fellow individuals, not necessarily emotions. According to this perspective, facial behavior should adapt based on the social context rather than the emotional one.
The ongoing debate about the strength and consistency of the relationship between emotions and overt facial behavior remains unresolved. However, most experts acknowledge that this relationship’s robustness varies. The challenge for future researchers is to identify the factors that influence and moderate this connection.
The Social Life of Emotions
While much of the research into emotions carries a distinct social psychological perspective, there is a growing trend where emotion researchers are delving explicitly into social psychological matters, and social psychologists are integrating emotional concepts and measurements into their examinations of core social psychological issues. This two-way exchange reflects the evolution of the field.
On one side of this evolving dynamic, emotion researchers focus on social or self-conscious emotions—like shame, guilt, embarrassment, envy, and jealousy—emotions intrinsically tied to real or imagined social settings. This line of inquiry underscores the significance of considering emotions within a social context, countering the implicit assumption found in many theories that emotions are primarily private experiences stemming from the isolated assessments of individuals regarding the impact of events on their personal well-being. Additionally, researchers in this category investigate how culture influences emotional experience and expression, highlighting how cultural values (e.g., honor) or self-identities (e.g., autonomous agency) shape the circumstances in which emotions are felt and conveyed.
On the other side, social psychologists examine phenomena like interpersonal, group, or intergroup relationships. They’ve discovered that integrating emotional processes enhances their understanding of these phenomena. Close personal relationships’ harmony and discord can be more comprehensively grasped by examining the emotional exchanges within them. Variations in work group productivity can be better comprehended by evaluating the emotional atmosphere within those groups. Furthermore, the acceptance or rejection of other social groups can be better understood by considering the emotions experienced towards their members.
While social psychologists have historically played a vital role in emotion research, it’s only relatively recently that emotion has become a central focus for them. However, the future promises a mutually beneficial relationship between emotion and social psychology, with both fields enriching each other’s understanding of human behavior and experiences.
- Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. (Eds.). (1997). What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (FACS). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (Eds.). (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Leach, C. W., & Tiedens, L. Z. (Eds.). (2004). The social life of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Parkinson, B., Fischer, A., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations: Cultural, group and interpersonal perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.
- Parrott, W. G. (Ed.). (2000). Emotions in social psychology: Essential readings. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
- Philippot, P., Friedman, R. S., & Coats, E. J. (Eds.). (1999). The social context of nonverbal behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Russell, J. A., & Fernandez-Dols, J. M. (Eds.). (1997). The psychology of facial expression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. London: Oxford University Press.