What Scientists Who Study Emotion Agree About Research-Article5969922015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691615596992EkmanWhat Scientists Who Study Emotion Agree About 596992research-article2015 Perspectives on Psychological Science 2016, Vol. 11(1) 31 –34 What Scientists Who Study © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Emotion Agree About DOI: 10.1177/1745691615596992 pps.sagepub.com Paul Ekman University of California, San Francisco and Paul Ekman Group, LLC Abstract In recent years, the field of emotion has grown enormously—recently, nearly 250 scientists were identified who are studying emotion. In this article, I report a survey of the field, which revealed high agreement about the evidence regarding the nature of emotion, supporting some of both Darwin’s and Wundt’s 19th century proposals. Topics where disagreements remain were also exposed. Keywords emotion survey, universality, basic emotions, facial expression In considering how emotions might be distinguished one and other issues as well. Recent years have also seen the from another, two approaches were proposed in the 19th rise of respected scientific journals devoted to emotion, century. Darwin (1872/1998) took for granted that emo- such as Emotion, and anthologies (Evans & Cruse, 2004; tions are modular (or discrete) and used terms such as Soloman, 2003) presenting the diverse views of philoso- anger, fear, disgust, and so forth to specify separate mod- phers, sociologists, psychologists, and neuroscientists. ules. Allport (1924), Ekman and Friesen (1969), Izard The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the status (1971), Tomkins (1962), and Woodworth (1938) all uti- of this field of research today. Were disagreements lized very similar approaches to organizing emotions and revealed in 1994 (albeit using different methods) resolved posited many of the same modules. by the evidence obtained since then? What topics remain Wundt (1896) proposed differentiating emotions via unsettled? The survey focused on those scientists using the dimensions of pleasant–unpleasant and low–high quantitative methods to study emotion. intensity. Plutchik (1962), Russell and Fernandez-Dols The participants in this email survey were identified (1997), and Schlosberg (1954) all advocated similar by multiple criteria: (a) They had published five or more approaches. Wundt also described a modular organiza- times in the past 8 years within or across the following tion of emotions, advocating the combination of both a scientific journals: Emotion, Journal of Experimental dimensional and modular approach. For example, the Psychology: General, Psychological Science, Proceedings anger module differs from the fear module, but anger of the National Academy of Sciences, Psychological varies in how unpleasant it feels and in its strength. Review, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Neuroscience, Whereas Plutchik set out to describe what emotions Neuron, Nature, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, or Science; are and not just how language is used to represent them, (b) they were on the editorial board or reviewed articles Schlosberg’s focus was on how to best represent the for the journal Emotion; (c) they had contributed to the information signaled by facial expressions. James A. first edition of the Nature of Emotion, edited by P. Ekman Russell (personal communication, January 25, 2015) and R. A. Davidson (21 of the original 24 contributors believes that his “dimensions are useful descriptors of the were still alive); or (d) they were invited by R. A. Davidson meaning of words and parts of emotions themselves”. and associates to contribute to a second edition of the Fifty years ago, only a handful of scientists pursued Nature of Emotion. the study of emotion, but in recent years, experiments in this field have grown enormously. Many of these experi- ments have focused on facial expression, but an increas- Corresponding Author: ing number have examined the physiology of emotion E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on February 16, 2016 32 Ekman A reviewer of this report raised the possibility that the All those who chose both approaches, in addition to selection criteria might have skewed the sample toward those who had chosen only the discrete choice (a total of older, more established scientists. The age distribution 74% of those surveyed), were asked which emotion was examined and found to be normal, with as many labels (out of a list of 18) should be considered to have participants between 30 and 40 as there were over 60. been empirically established. There was high agreement There were no significant differences in the answers to about five emotions (all of which were described by both the survey as a function of age. Darwin and Wundt): anger (91%), fear (90%), disgust To guard against unwitting substantive bias in the (86%), sadness (80%), and happiness (76%). Shame, sur- selection process, the author of this report, who is an prise, and embarrassment were endorsed by 40%–50%. early and well-known contributor to emotion research Other emotions, currently under study by various investi- and has used a modular approach in studies of expres- gators drew substantially less support: guilt (37%), con- sion and physiology cross culturally, enlisted the help of tempt (34%), love (32%), awe (31%), pain (28%), envy a well-known scientific critic of the author’s findings and (28%), compassion (20%), pride (9%), and gratitude (6%). theory. James A. Russell verified that the selection pro- Finally, there was high agreement about whether “spe- cess was free from bias, except for excluding those not cific moods may be related to specific emotions(s) such using quantitative methods. Russell also vetted the survey as anger to irritability” (88%), whether “specific personal- questions and contributed one of the questions included ity traits are related in some way to specific emotions, in the survey (Question 2 in the Appendix). such as fear to shyness” (82%), and whether specific The survey was emailed to 248 scientists in mid-June emotional disorders are related in some way to specific of 2014. The cover letter explained how the participants emotions, such as disgust to anorexia (75%). were selected and the steps taken to guard against bias in When only those who responded to some but not all participant selection and questions asked. Participants of the questions, or just those who only met the frequent were told that the survey had been kept brief to encour- publications criterion, were examined, the findings did age their participation—only six questions plus a possi- not differ by more than 2 or 3 percentage points. None of ble nine follow-up questions. The responses offered the demographic responses—country, discipline, year were closed-ended. A follow-up reminder was sent 2 Ph.D. was achieved, age, or sex—were related to the sur- weeks after the initial email. There was a moderately vey question answers. A comparison of a random sample high response rate of 60%. of 30 people who responded to the survey with a ran- The existence of “compelling evidence for universals dom sample of 30 nonrespondents revealed no differ- in any aspect of emotion” was endorsed by 88% of the ences in any of the demographic variables. respondents. The evidence supporting universal signals Comparing these findings to an investigation of the (face or voice) was endorsed by 80%. There was less views of the 24 most active emotion researchers 20 years agreement about whether there is compelling evidence ago (Ekman & Davidson, 1994) reveals much more agree- for universals in the events that trigger an emotion (66%), ment now than then. There was no agreement then about physiology (51%), or appraisal mechanisms (44%). Thus, universals or about what emotions should be considered. Darwin’s claim in 1872 and the more recent work of The agreement now about the evidence for universals in Ekman and Friesen (1969) and Izard (1971) regarding the emotional signals and the evidence for five emotions is universality of some facial expressions were supported. robust. There was no agreement 20 years ago about In response to the question “which of the following whether moods differ from emotion. Today, most emo- best captures your orientation toward emotion in your tion scientists agree that moods are related to emotions, research?”, 49% chose “discrete emotions (anger, fear, but this survey did not explore how. In a similar fashion, etc.) combining both biological and social influences,” most scientists see personality and psychopathology 11% chose “emotions as constructed, either socially or related to each emotion, but the nature of that relation- psychologically to fit current conditions,” and 30% indi- ship was not explored in this survey. Twenty years of cated they used both approaches. research has been productive, but as this short survey Because there has been disagreement in the past lit- revealed, there are still many aspects of emotion that erature about the meaning of the phrase “basic emo- deserve further scrutiny to reduce the disagreements that tions,” the question “what is most basic about emotions” still persist. Perhaps most important, the question remains: was asked. In responses, 18% chose dimensions such as Will compelling evidence for more than just five emo- approach–avoidance, positive–negative, or a model tions be forthcoming in the coming decades, or is that all including two dimensions; 16% chose “discrete packages that can be empirically established? of emotional responses,” whereas the majority (55%) This survey should help to eliminate the confusion in reported both views to be most basic about emotions, the popular press about whether there is any agreement at the stance taken by Wundt (1896). all about the nature of emotion. Disagreements, which still Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on February 16, 2016 What Scientists Who Study Emotion Agree About 33 persist about every question asked, have been misinter- Approach-avoidance preted (for example, The Atlantic, February 2015) as a lack Circumplex model of agreement about anything (Beck, 2015). This survey has Positive-negative found broad areas of agreement about the evidence for C.