Picture yourself walking in the forest, ruminating on various philosophical matters. As you go deeper into the bush, you realize that you have lost your way. Stopping in a clearing to get your bearings, you hear a rustling off to the left and realize that a large black bear is ambling into the very same clearing. The bear takes notice of you and starts moving in your direction. As you pause, uncertain as to what to do next, you are reminded of a classic example posed by legendary philosopher and psychologist, William James.
In 1884, James published a seminal paper titled What is An Emotion in the philosophy journal Mind (there were no psychology journals around then). In this paper, he reasoned that human emotion followed a sequence of events beginning with an arousing stimulus (i.e., physiological arousal linked to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system) which then triggered the corresponding emotion. In other words, do we run from a bear because we are afraid or are we afraid because we are running from the bear? While the commonplace assumption is that the bear is the source of our fear, James argued that this commonsense interpretation is wrong. It was James’ contention that bodily changes result from the perception of the “exciting fact” which in term leads to the psychological sensation called emotion. Different situations trigger different physiological changes which in turn lead to different emotions. It was this observation that formed the basis of what would be termed the James-Lange theory of emotion.
As might be expected, the James-Lange theory met with opposition, most notably by Walter Cannon and Philip Bard who, between them, proposed what is known as the Cannon-Bard theory in the 1920s. This theory maintains that the psychological state we know as emotion is the direct consequence of the stimulus and that the physiological changes were the result, rather than the cause of emotion. In other words, Seeing the bear makes us afraid and the physiological changes linked to fear occur as a result.
Dissatisfaction with the two prevailing theories of emotion led to a third theory expounded in the 1960s by psychologists Stanley Schacter and Jerome Singer. Titled the Two-Factor Theory of emotion, it states that emotion is mediated by two factors: physiological arousal and cognition. We often can not tell what emotion we should be experiencing based on physical arousal alone. Therefore, cognition of the situational context is needed to determine the appropriate emotion. Of course, when the bear is right in front of you, little interpretation is needed. To this day, each theory has its own proponents.
While you stand there rapt in speculation, the bear (who is no doubt puzzled by your odd behaviour in not running) continues to approach you. You note this in passing and edge backwards slowly but surely. You think, which is coming first? The emotion or the physiological sensation associated with the emotion? Your heart is certainly pounding and you are certainly afraid but the exact sequence is a mystery as you are too busy turning and running.
The bear, no doubt thinking that lunatics are not good to eat, does not pursue and you in turn stumble onto a familiar trail that leads you back to your campsite. It occurs to you that for future philosophical ventures in the woods, it would be best to bring along a fellow enthusiast.
Preferably someone you can outrun.
Comments