Universals in how emotions are identified and classified

Emotions (or affective responses) organize various forms of action readiness. Their impact is also mediated by an awareness of internal feelings and an ability to reflect on them. Panskepp (1998) distinguished four distinct neural circuits underlying common emotions:

1. A foraging–expectancy–curiosity–investigatory network

2. An anger–rage network

3. An anxiety–fear network

4. A separation–distress–sorrow–anguish–panic network

The perception of basic emotions in others’ faces may be biologically determined, rather than learned. This was first suggested by Darwin in 1872, but only systematically studied later. Ekman (1993) proposed that six primary emotions could be recognized from the same facial expressions across cultures: (1) fear; (2) anger; (3) disgust; (4) sadness; (5) enjoyment or happiness; and (6) surprise. Evidence supports the universality of the first five. When 70% or more of one cultural group judge a picture of facial expression to be one of these emotions, a similar percentage in other cultural groups will make the same judgement. We know too that the whole body transmits cues even when we adopt a ‘poker’ face! We cannot consciously control these signals.

Moods last longer and are not as reactive as emotions (Gross, 1998).

Controversy: what comes first: arousal, perception or identification of emotion?

That emotions involve physiological changes in the body is not disputed, but the nature of that relationship has been the topic of debate over centuries. In the late 19th century, James (1884) and Lange independently proposed that we experience emotion (e.g. fear) after perceptual events (e.g. I have just been told I must undergo major surgery) and subsequent physiological changes (e.g. heightened sympathetic arousal; see pp. 126–127). However, the James–Lange theory could not explain emotions reported by people with spinal injuries blocking physiological feedback to the brain. Two physiologists, Cannon (1931) and Baird, subsequently argued that, whereas heart pounding corresponds with fear, one does not cause the other: they represent two outcomes of the same (or parallel) processes. Later Schachter (1964) proposed his two-factor theory, arguing that whereas physiological changes appear to be necessary for emotion, the nature of the emotional experience depends on how these changes are interpreted (e.g. how a person interprets the situation in which his or her heart is pounding). So different situations will determine whether a person experiences joy or anger or fear. Finally, while there is no doubt that many important emotional responses and behaviours arise from their cognitive interpretation, a growing number of psychologists believe that there may be different kinds of emotional response: some may occur instantly, prior to any cognitive processing and outside conscious awareness (Zajonc, 1998). Figure 1

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue