Category: Neuroscience

Posted on

Emotions II

In my previous blog, I gave a short intro to some of the thoughts psychologists and neuroscientists had in the 19th century around the emergence of emotions. However, with a new century came new ideas, and the 1920s saw Walter Cannon and Philip Bard directly challenge the James-Lange theory. Instead of emotions following from physical reactions, they proposed that our physiological responses, such as trembling or breathing rapidly, are in fact independent from emotions and simply occur simultaneously.

To translate this to our earlier example, imagine that you are walking down a new dark and empty street when again you suddenly hear someone trailing behind you. According to the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, you start feeling afraid and at the same time your heart starts to race, largely independently from each other. They asserted that emotions can be experienced without the presence of physiological responses, and that a theory of emotion should reflect this.

Both theories have been heavily criticised, but as always there seem to be bits of truth hidden in both. In an attempt to integrate the two approaches, more recent theories of emotion (such as the two-factor theory proposed by Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer in the 1960s) attempt to highlight the role physiology plays in the formation and experience of emotions while still accounting for the fact that physiological reactions such as trembling are not specific to one particular emotion but instead are similar for multiple different emotions.

There are many more theories around emotions, such as James Gross’ emotion regulation theory, which I may write a blog about some time in the future.. One thing is for sure: whether physiological reactions generate emotions or just accompany them – emotions usually serve a certain function. Understanding what your body is trying to tell you will help you understand yourself and your environment, making life just a little bit easier. (:

An earlier version of this blog post can be found on the GEMH Lab website. Here, I have updated that post slightly.

Posted on

Emotions I

The relationship between our bodies and our minds has fascinated me since I started my education in Psychology. Unsurprisingly, the mind-body relationship is incredibly complex, and one of the most profound examples of this mysterious interaction is the phenomenon of emotions; specifically where they come from.

In this ultra-short two-part blog series I want to delve a little into some theories around how our emotions come to be. It’s not really a subject exclusively related to our digital lives, but since we do experience plenty of emotions on digital platforms I figured I could get away with it. (; Emotions are such a ubiquitous part of our lives that I couldn’t help but wonder; how is something so real and yet so intangible as emotions connected to a bunch of human body cells?

Although the definition of ’emotion’ is still very much debated, emotions are generally thought of as complex feelings of which one is usually conscious, and which are related to psychological and physical changes in the mind and body, respectively. Although they don’t always influence behaviour (but very well might), emotions will almost always influence a person’s thoughts, and are thus a very powerful phenomenon of human psychology.

However, how do emotions arise? And how are these complex psychological states related to our body? It turns out, that – as with the definition itself – the generation of emotions is a topic of controversy as well. In fact, with regard to the question of how emotions arise, there are two starkly opposing camps.

19th Century scientists William James and Carl Lange simultaneously yet independently from each other proposed an account of emotions that is now known as the James-Lange theory of emotion. According to this theory, emotions arise in the following way: imagine that you are walking down a dark and empty street, and suddenly you hear someone trailing behind you. James and Lange would say that you have perceived a certain stimulus, in this case the sound of footsteps, and that your body shows a physiological response to this stimulus: your heart starts to race. According to James and Lange, you then interpret this physiological reaction in a certain way, namely as fear, which results in you feeling afraid. In other words, this theory proposes that people have a physiological response to events in their environment, and that their interpretation of this physical reaction results in the experience of an emotion.

However, that’s only one side to the story. In the second and final part of this little series about emotions I’ll go into a completely different view on the matter, so stay tuned. In the meantime, let me know what you think of the James-Lange theory — would you agree that the emotion you feel is just a matter of how you interpret your body?

An earlier version of this blog post can be found on the GEMH Lab website. Here, I have updated that post slightly.

Posted on

Why being social is so important to us

We are immensely social beings: we enjoy having friends and sharing knowledge or experiences with them, and most people try to connect with other people first chance they get. It’s not really surprising that social media have increased in popularity as much as they have, only further illustrating our desire to see and be seen, to talk to and be talked to. Why are we so drawn to social activities, though? Is there more to this desire to be part of a collective? The answer is ‘yes, there is’, and I’ll briefly explain why.

In 2003, a study conducted by researchers in the lab of neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman set out to investigate the brain’s response to social rejection1. They found, surprisingly, that the brains of their participants responded very similarly to the way the brains respond when a person is in physical pain. The researchers concluded that the human brain processes social discomfort and hurt the same way it does physical pain, even though there is no material cause. Surprising? Absolutely, especially given the fact that another study has found that painkillers affect this ‘social pain’ the same way they do ‘real’, physical pain2. But what is it about social pain that is so crucial for it to be equated to actual physical pain by our brains?

Let’s wind back, all the way to when our lives began: birth. Suffice to say that not all animals are born equally self-sufficient. Baby foals are up and running within hours of their arrival to this world, while human babies are, well… helpless. The first two months of life find human babies unable to lift their own heads without help from others, let alone stand and walk around. The only reason any of us has survived infancy is simply because we all have had a caregiver who felt such a strong connection to us that they were willing to take care of us and feed us over many years. It also helps that these caregivers feel pain when being separated from their child, same as a baby cries and experiences pain when being separated from their caregiver. 

Aeons ago our ancestors discovered that tackling problems threatening their survival was best done collectively. Sharing knowledge, food, tools and other resources helped them hunt animals, beat famine and secure the survival not only of their lives, but their genes as well. And I don’t mean Levi’s. Simply put, humans depend on other humans for survival, whether it be within their own lifetime or as a species.

Further illustrating the importance of a social network is the fact that humans, over the many thousands of years of living and surviving in groups, have developed seemingly dedicated brain regions, focused on ‘social thinking’. These important skills include empathy and being able to imagine how other people are feeling in a given situation, but also being able to predict others’ behaviours based on how we would behave ourselves. All of these dedicated skills help us work, play, and share with other people, and are so much ingrained in our functioning that a specific neural network has developed to enable us be better social beings.

Another psycho-biological theory called the ‘social baseline theory’3 states that the human brain is made to function in social contexts and that, when social support is lacking, the brain is less able to handle everyday stressors. Instead, at a ‘social baseline’ (the situation in which people perceive they can expect help from others if they find themselves in a pickle), the brain performs best, and draws strength and resilience from this invisible (and maybe even imaginary!) safety net. You have to admit, feeling like you have someone to turn to makes obstacles easier to overcome.

To conclude, I hope I have been able to illustrate shortly how important being kind to one another is ; remember that when rejecting someone or excluding them, you most likely cause them to experience the same kind of pain if you were to harm them physically. We all need each other, and being there for one another will make the lives of everyone involved a lot easier.

Further reading

  1. Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt: An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science. 302:290–2.
  2. DeWall, C.N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G.D., Masten, C.L., Baumeister, R.F., Powell, C., Combs, D., Schurtz, D.R., Stillman, T.F., Tice, D.M., Eisenberger, N.I. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science. 21:931–7.
  3. Beckes, L. and Coan, J.A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 5: 976-988.