Unprovoked shark attacks are extremely uncommon, occurring less than 100 times per year worldwide. And most attacks are not fatal. To put things in perspective, you are 75 times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning and 33 times more likely to be killed by a dog (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2014). Despite their rarity, shark attacks seem to be particularly fear provoking. Maybe the thought of becoming the prey of a wild creature reminds us that we are still, at some level, animals: vulnerable players in the game of natural selection.

Fear is an emotion you experience throughout your life. When you were a baby, you might have been afraid of the vacuum cleaner or the hair dryer. As you matured, your fears may have shifted to the dog next door or the monster in the closet. These days you might be scared of growing older, being diagnosed with a serious disease, or losing someone you love.

LO 12 Define emotions and explain how they are different from moods.

But what exactly is fear? That’s an easy question: Fear is an emotion. Now here’s the hard question: What is an emotion? An emotion is a psychological state that includes a subjective or inner experience. In other words, emotion is intensely personal; we cannot actually feel each other’s emotions firsthand. Emotion also has a physiological component; it is not only “in our heads.” For example, anger can make you feel hot, anxiety might cause sweaty palms, and sadness may sap your physical energy. Finally, emotion entails a behavioral expression. We scream and run when frightened, gag in disgust, and shed tears of sadness. Think about the last time you felt joyous. What was your inner experience of that joy, how did your body react, and what would someone have noticed about your behavior?

Thus, emotion is a subjective psychological state that includes both physiological and behavioral components. But are these three elements—psychology, physiology, and behavior—equally important, and in what order do they occur? The answers to these questions are still under debate, as is the very definition of emotion (Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith, 2002). Given the complexity of emotion, it comes as no surprise that academics and scientists from many fields and perspectives are studying it (Coan, 2010).

MOODS VERSUS EMOTIONS Most psychologists agree that emotions are different from moods. Emotions are quite strong, but they don’t generally last as long as moods, and they are more likely to have an identifiable cause. An emotion is initiated by a stimulus, and it is more likely than a mood to motivate someone to action. Moods are longer-term emotional states that are less intense than emotions and do not appear to have distinct beginnings or ends (Kemeny & Shestyuk, 2008; Matlin, 2009; Oatley, Keltner, & Jenkins, 2006). An example might help clarify: Imagine your mood is happy, but a car cuts you off on the highway, creating a negative emotional response like anger.

386

Now let’s see how the three distinguishing characteristics of emotion (as opposed to moods) might apply to Lucy’s situation. When Lucy’s mother saw the wound from the shark bite, she remembers feeling “afraid” (CBS News, 2011, July 26). Her emotion (1) had a clear cause (the shark attacking her daughter), (2) likely produced a physiological reaction (heart racing, for example), and (3) motivated her to action (applying pressure to the wound and calling for help).

LANGUAGE AND EMOTION If you were Lucy’s mom, what words might you use to describe your fear—frightened, terrified, horrified, scared, petrified, spooked, aghast? Having a variety of labels at your disposal certainly helps when it comes to communicating your emotions. “I feel angry at you” conveys a slightly different meaning than “I feel resentful of you,” or “I feel annoyed by you.” The English language includes about 200 words to describe emotions. But does that mean we are capable of feeling only 200 emotions? Probably not. Words and emotions are not one and the same, but they are closely linked. In fact, their relationship has captivated the interest of linguists from fields as different as anthropology, psychology, and evolutionary biology (Majid, 2012).

Rather than focusing on words or labels, scholars typically characterize emotions along different dimensions. Izard (2007) suggests that we can describe emotions according to valence and arousal (Figure 9.5). The valence of an emotion refers to how pleasant or unpleasant it is. Happiness, joy, and satisfaction are on the pleasant end of the valence dimension; anger and disgust lie on the unpleasant end. The arousal level of an emotion describes how active, excited, and involved a person is while experiencing the emotion, as opposed to how calm, uninvolved, or passive she may be. With valence and arousal level, we can compare and contrast emotions. The emotion of ecstasy, for example, has a high arousal level and a positive valence. Feeling relaxed has a low arousal level and a positive valence. When Lucy looked down and saw the shark, she likely experienced an intense fear—high arousal, but negative valence. Fortunately, for Lucy and her family, fear eventually gave way to more positive emotions. Let’s find out what happened.

387

Such acts of self-defense are mediated by the sympathetic nervous system’s fight-or-flight response (Chapter 11). When faced with a crisis situation like a shark attack, stress hormones are released into the blood; breathing rate increases; the heart pumps faster and harder; blood pressure rises; the liver releases extra glucose into the bloodstream; and blood surges into the large muscles. All these physical changes prepare the body for confronting or fleeing the threat; hence the expression “fight or flight.” But fear is not the only emotion that involves dramatic physical changes. Tears pour from the eyes during intense sadness and joy. Anger is associated with sweating, elevated heart rate, and heightened blood flow to the hands, apparently in anticipation of a physical confrontation (Ekman, 2003).

LO 13 List the major theories of emotion and describe how they differ.

Most psychologists agree that emotions and physiology are deeply intertwined, but they have not always agreed on the precise order of events. What happens first: the body changes associated with emotion or the emotions themselves? That’s a no-brainer, you may be thinking. Emotions occur first, and then the body responds. American psychologist William James would have disagreed.

JAMES–LANGE THEORY In the late 1800s, James and Danish physiologist Carl Lange independently derived similar explanations for emotion (James, 1890/1983; Lange & James, 1922). What is now known as the James–Lange theory of emotion suggests that a stimulus initiates a physiological reaction (for example, the heart pounding, muscles contracting, a change in breathing) and/or a behavioral reaction (such as crying or striking out), which leads to an emotion (Infographic 9.3, below). Emotions do not cause physiological or behavioral reactions to occur, as common sense might suggest. Instead, “we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble” (James, 1890/1983, p. 1066). In other words, changes in the body and behavior pave the way for emotions. Our bodies automatically react to stimuli, and awareness of this physiological response leads to the subjective experience of an emotion.

388

How might the James–Lange theory apply to our shark attack victim Lucy? It all begins with a stimulus, in this case the appearance of the shark and the pain of the bite. Next occur the physiological reactions (increased heart rate, faster breathing, and so on) and the behavioral responses (screaming, trying to swim away). Finally, the emotion registers. Lucy feels fear. Imagine that Lucy, for some reason, had no physiological reaction to the shark—no rapid heartbeat, and so forth. Would she still experience the same degree of terror? According to the James–Lange theory, no. Lucy might see the shark and decide to flee, but she wouldn’t feel afraid.

The implication of the James–Lange theory is that each emotion has its own distinct physiological fingerprint. If this were the case, it would be possible to identify an emotion based on a person’s physiological/behavioral responses. A person who is sad would display a different physiological/behavioral profile compared to when feeling angry, for example. PET scans have confirmed that different emotions such as happiness, anger, and fear do indeed have distinct activation patterns in the brain, lending evidence in support of the James–Lange theory (Berthoz, Blair, Le Clec’h, & Martinot, 2002; Carlsson et al., 2004; Damasio et al., 2000; Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, & Zatorre, 2011).

However, critics of the James–Lange theory of emotion suggest it cannot fully explain emotional phenomena because (1) people who are incapable of feeling physiological reactions of internal organs (as a result of surgery or spinal cord injuries, for example) can still experience emotions; (2) the speed of an emotion is much faster than physiological changes occurring in internal organs; and (3) when physiological changes are made to the functions of internal organs (through a hormone injection, for instance), emotions do not necessarily change (Bard, 1934; Cannon, 1927; Hilgard, 1987). In one experiment, researchers used surgery to stop animals from becoming physiologically aroused, yet the animals continued to exhibit behaviors associated with emotions, such as growling and posturing (Cannon, 1927).

389

CANNON–BARD THEORY Walter Cannon (1927) and his student Philip Bard (1934) were among those who believed the James–Lange theory could not explain all emotions. The Cannon–Bard theory of emotion suggests that we do not feel emotion as a result of physiological and behavioral reactions; instead, the emotions and the body responses occur simultaneously (Infographic 9.3). The starting point of this response is a stimulus in the environment.

Let’s use the Cannon–Bard theory to see how the appearance of a snake might lead to an emotional reaction. Imagine you are about to crawl into bed for the night. You pull back the sheets, and there, in YOUR BED, is a snake! According to the Cannon–Bard theory, the image of the snake will stimulate sensory neurons to relay signals in the direction of your cortex. But rather than rushing to the cortex, these signals pass through the thalamus, splitting in two directions—one toward the cortex and the other toward the hypothalamus.

When the neural information reaches the cortex and hypothalamus, several things could happen. First, the “thalamic–hypothalamic complex will be thrown into a state of readiness” (Krech & Crutchfield, 1958, p. 343), in a sense, waiting for the determination of whether the message will continue to the skeletal muscles and internal organs, instructing them to react. The neural information from the thalamus will arrive in the cortex at the same time, enabling you to “perceive” the snake on your bed. If it is just a rubber snake, this news will be sent from the cortex to the thalamic–hypothalamic complex, preventing the emergency signal from being sent to the skeletal muscles and internal organs. However, if the object in your bed is a real snake, then the emergency message will be forwarded to your skeletal muscles and internal organs, prompting a physiological and/or behavioral response (heart racing, jumping backward). It is at this point, along with the perception of the snake, that an emotion is experienced. The emotion and physiological reaction occur simultaneously.

Critics of the Cannon–Bard theory suggest that the thalamus might not be capable of carrying out this complex processing on its own and that other brain areas may contribute (Beebe-Center, 1951; Hunt, 1939). Research suggests that the limbic system, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex are also substantially involved in processing emotions (Kolb & Whishaw, 2009; Northoff et al., 2009).

390

SCHACHTER–SINGER THEORY Stanley Schachter and Jerome E. Singer (1962) also took issue with the James–Lange theory, primarily because different emotions do not have distinct and recognizable physiological responses. They suggested there is a general pattern of physiological arousal caused by the sympathetic nervous system, and this pattern is common to a variety of emotions. The Schachter–Singer theory of emotion proposes that the experience of emotion is the result of two factors: (1) physiological arousal, and (2) a cognitive label for this physiological state (the arousal). According to this theory, if someone experiences physiological arousal, but doesn’t know why it has occurred, she will label the arousal and explain her feelings based on her “knowledge” of the environment (that is, in recognition of the context of the situation). Depending on the “cognitive aspects of the situation,” the physiological arousal might be labeled as joy, fear, anxiety, fury, or jealousy (Infographic 9.3).

To test their theory, Schachter and Singer injected participants (male college students) with either epinephrine to mimic physiological reactions of the sympathetic nervous system (such as increased blood pressure, respiration, and heart rate) or a placebo. The researchers also divided the participants into the following groups: those who were informed correctly about possible side effects (for example, tremors, palpitations, flushing, or accelerated breathing), those who were misinformed about side effects, and others who were told nothing about side effects.

The participants were left in a room with a “stooge,” a confederate secretly working for the researcher, who was either euphoric or angry. When the confederate behaved euphorically, the participants who had been given no explanation for their physiological arousal were more likely to report feeling happy or appeared happier. When the confederate behaved angrily, participants given no explanation for their arousal were more likely to appear or report feeling angry. Through observation and self-report, it was clear the participants who did not receive an explanation for their physiological arousal could be manipulated to feel either euphoria or anger, depending on the confederate they were paired with. The participants who were accurately informed about side effects did not show signs or report feelings of euphoria or anger. Instead, they accurately attributed their physiological arousal to the side effects clearly explained to them at the beginning of the study (Schachter & Singer, 1962).

Some have criticized the Schachter–Singer theory, suggesting it overstates the link between physiological arousal and the experience of emotion (Reisenzein, 1983). Studies have shown that people can experience an emotion without labeling it, especially if neural activity sidesteps the cortex, heading straight to the limbic system (Dimberg, Thumberg, & Elmehed, 2000; Lazarus, 1991a). We will discuss this process in the upcoming section on fear.

COGNITIVE APPRAISAL AND EMOTION Rejecting the notion that emotions result from cognitive labels of physiological arousal, Richard Lazarus (1984, 1991a) suggested that emotion is the result of the way people appraise or interpret interactions they have in their surroundings. It doesn’t matter if someone can label an emotion or not; he will experience the emotion nonetheless. We’ve all felt emotions such as happiness, anxiety, and shame, and we don’t need an agreed upon label or word to experience them. Babies, for example, can feel emotions long before they are able to label them with words.

Lazarus also suggested that emotions are adaptive, because they help us cope with the surrounding world. In a continuous feedback loop, as an individual’s appraisal or interpretation of his environment changes, so do his emotions (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus, 1991b). Emotion is a very personal reaction to the environment. This notion became the foundation of the cognitive appraisal approach to emotion (Infographic 9.3), which suggests that the appraisal causes an emotional reaction. In contrast, Schachter–Singer theory asserts the arousal comes first and then has to be labeled.

391

Responding to the cognitive-appraisal approach, Robert Zajonc (ZI-yənce; 1984) suggested that thinking does not always have to be involved when we experience an emotion. As Zajonc (1980) saw it, emotions can precede thoughts and may even cause them. He also suggested we can experience emotions without interpreting what is occurring in the environment. Emotion can influence cognition, and cognition can influence emotion.

One of the main areas of disagreement among the theories just described concerns the role of cognition. Forgas (2008) proposed that the association between emotion and cognitive activity is complex and bidirectional: “Cognitive processes determine emotional reactions, and, in turn, affective states influence how people remember, perceive, and interpret social situations and execute interpersonal behaviors” (p. 99).

We now know that emotions are complex and closely related to cognition, physiology, and perception. But how do these internal changes affect a person’s appearance? Think about the clues you rely on when trying to “read” another person’s emotions. Where do you look for signs of anger, sadness, or surprise? It’s written all over his face, of course.

LO 14 Discuss evidence to support the idea that emotions are universal.

Writing in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872/2002), Charles Darwin suggested that interpreting facial expressions is not something we learn but rather is an innate ability that evolved because it promotes survival. Sharing the same facial expressions allows for communication. Being able to identify the emotions of others—like the fear in a friend who has just spotted a snake on the trail—would seem to come in handy. If facial expressions are truly unlearned and universal, then people from all different cultures ought to interpret them in the same way. A “happy face” should look much the same wherever you go, from the United States to the Pacific island of New Guinea.

EKMAN’S FACES Some four decades ago, psychologist Paul Ekman traveled to a remote mountain region of New Guinea to study an isolated group of indigenous peoples. Ekman and his colleagues were very careful in selecting their participants, choosing only those who were unfamiliar with Western facial behaviors—people who were unlikely to know the signature facial expressions we equate with basic emotions like disgust and sadness. The participants didn’t speak English, nor had they watched Western movies, worked for anyone with a Caucasian background, or lived among Westerners. The study went something like this: The researchers told the participants stories conveying various emotions such as fear, happiness, and anger. In the story conveying fear, for example, a man is sitting alone in his house with no knife, axe, bow, or any weapon to defend himself. Suddenly, a wild pig appears in his doorway, and he becomes frightened that the pig will bite him. Next, the researchers asked the participants to match the emotion described in the story to a picture of a person’s face (choosing from 6–12 sets of photographs). The results indicated that the same facial expressions represent the same basic emotions across cultures (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). And so it seems, a “happy face” really does look the same to people in the United States and New Guinea.

392

Further evidence for the universal nature of these facial expressions is apparent in children born blind; although they have never seen a human face demonstrating an emotion, their smiles and frowns are similar to those of sighted children (Galati, Scherer, & Ricci-Bitti, 1997; Matsumoto & Willingham, 2009).

LO 15 Indicate how display rules influence the expression of emotion.

across the WORLD

393

FACIAL FEEDBACK HYPOTHESIS While we are on the topic of facial expressions, let’s take a brief detour back to the very beginning of the chapter when Mohamed arrived in his first-grade classroom speaking no English. Without a common language to communicate, Mohamed turned to a more universal form of communication: smiling. It is probably safe to assume that most of Mohamed’s classmates took this to mean he was enjoying himself, as smiling is viewed as a sign of happiness in virtually every corner of the world. It also seems plausible that Mohamed’s smiling had a positive effect on his classmates, making them more likely to approach and befriend him. But how do you think the act of smiling affected Mohamed?

Believe it or not, the simple act of smiling can make a person feel happier. Although facial expressions are caused by the emotions themselves, they sometimes affect the experience of those emotions. This is known as the facial feedback hypothesis (Buck, 1980), and if it is correct, we should be able to manipulate our emotions through our facial activities. Try this for yourself.

If you are like the participants in a study conducted by Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988), holding the pen in your teeth should result in your seeing the objects and events in your environment as funnier than if you hold the pen with your lips. Why would that be? Take a look at the photo to the right and note how the person holding the pen in his teeth seems to be smiling—the feedback of those smiling muscles leads to a happier mood.

We are now nearing the end of this chapter—and what an emotional one it has been! Before wrapping things up, let’s examine various kinds of emotions humans can experience, narrowing our gaze onto fear and happiness.

Question 1

1. Valence

2. Instinct

3. Mood

4. Emotion

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

1. Beliefs

2. Display rules

3. Feedback loops

4. Appraisals

Question 5

Question 6