Perspectives from affective science on understanding the nature of emotion - Fox - 2018 - Article

People understand the human mind and relationships with the social world trough emotions. Within the science discipline, there is still no consensus about the fundamental nature of emotions. Researchers are trying to find evidence to explain the connections between emotions, moods, feelings and the embodiment of emotions within the brain (affective neuroscience). Many researchers think emotions are action plans that are biologically given, these action plans are used to navigate through complexities and are decoupled reflexes (Barrett, 2006). This view is also called the natural-kind view. Another perspective is called the conceptual construction view of emotions. It explains that emotions are social constructions that arise from our highly developed conceptual system. Emotions are used to make sense of incoming information. They are not responses to sensual events, but rather conceptual constructions. The existence of these opposing standpoints on the nature of emotions calls for further explanation.

What is the history of studying emotion?

Emotions used to be referred to as passions and were seen as part of the process of reasoning. Currently, the natural-kind view of emotion has been dominant which explains emotions as an integral part of most salient events going on around us. According to this vision, emotions play a role in decision-making, memory and perception. Emotions are thus useful in everyday life but can also cause psychological stress, such as anxiety and sadness.

What are the challenges facing a science of emotion?

There has been progress in the development of understanding the fundamentals of emotions, however the understanding of emotions and emotional disorders is facing some obstacles.

1. There is disagreement about the definition of emotion that needs to be resolved.

2. The field of affective science is multidisciplinary, and the researched phenomena can be analysed using different methodologies. It can lead to difficulties across disciplines.

3. The affective scientists hold strong assumptions about the nature of emotions which colours interpretation of scientific data.

How should different affective phenomena be defined?

Researchers have been using the terms mood, emotion and feeling interchangeably which has led to confusion. Several attempts have been made to establish a definition, but there is no consensus yet. Moods and emotions should be separated from the feelings (conscious experience). Affect is described as the responses related to moods and emotions and their regulation.

What are problems in researching emotion?

Besides definition problems, interpretation of research can be challenging. However, many researchers agree on the primary role of the amygdala in experiencing and understanding emotions. Studies that examined the emotion ‘fear’ found that fear-associations can create different biases to certain cues in the environment. Another research approach is the use of patients with brain damage, fMRI can be used to map neural networks involved in emotion. The problem with researching emotions is that some affective scientists focus on the nature of consciously felt affective experiences and some focus on cognitive and neural aspects of affective disorders. The methodology used in affective research depends on the observer and his or her pre-existing assumptions.

How does emotion work within the brain?

One common hypothesis is that there are innate emotion circuits in the brain, which concurs with the natural-view of emotion. These theorists argue that there are basic emotions, or emotional systems that are universal. This means that there are universally recognizable emotional patterns that are defined by their neural circuits. Besides the basic emotions, there are also basic emotional systems, Panksepp (1998) described the systems: care, seeking, rage, lust, fear, play and panic. However, other scientists argue that the subjective experience of emotion is best described along a continuum from low to high arousal, this is called the conceptual act theory (CAT) of emotion. According to Russel and Barnett (1999), the basic emotions are rather categorical constructions of a more basic psychological process.

Do emotions involve coordinated neural, behavioural and cognitive components?

Another common assumption is that emotions need a temporary change in physiological, and behavioural components that are important for survival. These components include actions, psychological changes, cognitive appraisals, feelings and facial expressions. The component process model of emotion assumes that the components are linked to sub-systems, related to the human’s core functions. Cognitive appraisal is an integral part of emotion research. Magda Arnold (1960) argued that people are constantly trying to define whether environmental cues are significant and whether they are a threat. Lazarus (1966) later defined secondary appraisal, which is the judgement about someone’s ability to cope with the situation at hand. According to Scherer (2001) people cope with emotions using parallel appraisal where new events are evaluated in terms of social norms and ability to cope. The contemporary view is that cognitive and affective processing are so tightly related, it is almost impossible to separate them.

Can the natural -and conceptual construction kind of emotion be reconciled?

There are discrete and dimensional approaches to emotion that have been pitted against each other in affective science. However, the integration seems necessary for the explanation of emotion. Fox (2018) argues that it is probably best to take the seven primary emotions defined by Panksepp (1998) as the automatic and basic emotion system regulation. Each of the seven emotions is then assumed to mobilize other tendencies. Furthermore, they affect mood and the individual. Fox (2018) also argues that emotional systems are not directly accessible to conscious awareness.

Is a psychological construction approach better than a functional approach?

There is an ongoing discussion about the distinction between the traditional and functional approach and the constructionist approach to emotion. Barrett (2017) proposes that the brain creates a concept of emotion and categorisation leads to the meaningful instance of it. He argues emotion -and semantic concepts have the same origin. His central assumption is that emotions are constructions of the world, not responses. Fox (2018) argues that the concept of emotion should be kept and separated from experiencing an emotional episode. Adolphs (2017) proposed the functional approach, meaning that if there is an emotion, is needs to be described in terms of function.

BulletPoints

• Researchers are trying to find evidence to explain the connections between emotions, moods, feelings and the embodiment of emotions within the brain (affective neuroscience). Many researchers think emotions are action plans that are biologically given, these action plans are used to navigate through complexities and are decoupled reflexes (Barrett, 2006). This view is also called the natural-kind view. Another perspective is called the conceptual construction view of emotions. It explains that emotions are social constructions that arise from our highly developed conceptual system.

• There are discrete and dimensional approaches to emotion that have been pitted against each other in affective science. However, the integration seems necessary for the explanation of emotion. Fox (2018) argues that it is probably best to take the seven primary emotions defined by Panksepp (1998) as the automatic and basic emotion system regulation. Each of the seven emotions is then assumed to mobilize other tendencies.

ExamTickets

• The author (Fox) describes the different viewpoints on emotion. He also argues for his own opinion, what does Fox say about the universal emotions? What is his standpoint on the natural versus constructionist view?

• You should know what the difference is between a construction and a functionalist approach to emotions.