DOCSLIB.ORG

Categories and Their Role in the Science of Emotion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Categories and Their Role in the Science of Emotion Psychological Inquiry An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory ISSN: 1047-840X (Print) 1532-7965 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpli20 Categories and Their Role in the Science of Emotion Lisa Feldman Barrett To cite this article: Lisa Feldman Barrett (2017) Categories and Their Role in the Science of Emotion, Psychological Inquiry, 28:1, 20-26, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2017.1261581 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1261581 Published online: 26 Feb 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpli20 Download by: [Northeastern University] Date: 27 February 2017, At: 08:24 PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2017, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 20–26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1261581 COMMENTARIES Categories and Their Role in the Science of Emotion Lisa Feldman Barretta,b aDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts; bDepartment of Psychiatry and the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts A perplexing situation persists in the science of emotion: There are certain distinctions between the theories (within the same a multitude of theories that vary a great deal from one another in category) and to focus attention on other distinctions (different almost every way imaginable: on the details of how an emotion categories). This highlights an important observation: Most cate- should be defined; on where to draw the boundaries for what gories are not perceiver-independent, natural kinds. The similari- counts as an emotion and what does not; on which emotions mat- ties between members of the same category, and the differences ter; on how emotions are different from related concepts like across categories, are not absolute or fixed but are rooted in mood, reward, and motivation; and on how various phenomena human concerns. A category of emotion theories (like most cate- such as facial movements, physiological changes, and feelings gories we deal with in science) is a grouping of theories that is should be treated. Theories even disagree on what observations treated as similar for some purpose (Murphy, 2002), with refer- and measurements counts as evidence for hypothesis testing. Scien- ence to a scientist’sparticulargoal (Barsalou, 1983). tists attempt to bring order to this dizzying cornucopia of theories Herein lies the fundamental challenge for the science of emo- in the same way that all living creatures deal with variation: We tion: Scientists sometimes fail to see how their own interests and form categories. goals influence which similarities they focus on, and which they Scientists love to sort things into groups or sets and then ignore, both when it comes to categories of emotion theories and name them. Aristotle famously catalogued all sorts of when categorizing emotional events, however labeled (as “emo- stuff—from animals to governments—into strictly ordered tions” or as “emotional episodes”). The human brain is so effective “ ” “ ” typologies or taxonomies. Carl Linnaeus created a taxon- at creating similarities that it fails to recognize its own contributions omy of plants, animals, and minerals that, to some extent, is to category formation. The result is na€ıve realism. still in use by biologists today. Physicist and novelist Alan In the science of emotion, the conceptual pie is sliced and diced Lightman eloquently described the lure of categorization: into many different taxonomies (just take a look at the Wikipedia page for “emotion” for some examples). One common taxonomy To name a thing, one needs to have gathered it, distilled and puri- fi of emotion theories includes a category called “basic emotion theo- ed it, attempted to identify it with clarity and precision. One puts ” “ ” a box around the thing, and says what’s in the box is the thing and ries, a category called appraisal theories, and a category called what’s not is not. … For scientists, it is a great comfort, a feeling of “construction theories” (sometimes distinguishing psychological power, a sense of control, to be able to name things this way. and social variants; e.g., Gross & Barrett, 2011). In several papers, I – (Lightman, 2005,p.45 46) have suggested that this standard taxonomy constitutes one of the largest barriers to progress in the science of emotion because it In the science of emotion, we treat the multitude of theories both conceals meaningful variation within any single category of exactly the same way we treat the phenomena themselves (i.e., the emotion theories and obscures important conceptual similarities emotional events): We create taxonomies (of emotion theories, or across theories (for discussions, see Barrett, 2006a, 2015, 2017, of emotional events). And true to form, we cannot agree on which in press-a; Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007; Gross & Bar- taxonomy is best. In the science of emotion, our colleagues largely do seem to agree on one thing, however: Scientific progress usually rett, 2011). Jim Russell has also written about similar concerns (e.g., Russell, 2015). In her recent paper, our colleague Agnes Moors means cleaving larger categories into ever more precise groupings (this issue) reveals herself to be a kindred spirit. as an attempt to tame the huge amounts of variation and find signal in noise. Categories are, of course, a necessary part of science. Category Moors’s Categories formation requires focusing on some similarities shared by a group of instances and ignoring their differences. This allows us Agnes Moors (this issue) offers her own version of an emotion the- to draw boundaries between what is the same and what is differ- ory taxonomy. She wants us to understand that, from her perspec- ent. When it comes to organizing the multitude of emotion theo- tive, there are two superordinate categories of emotion theories: ries into a few broader groupings, a scientist must focus on some “classic versus skeptical” theories. The category “classic theories” conceptual similarities at the expense of others. By grouping vari- finds similarities between basic emotion theories and what Moors able theories into a category while separating others into different terms “discrete appraisal” theories (which she also calls “Flavor 1” categories, a scientist digests variation, inviting readers to ignore appraisal theories; Moors, 2014), whereas “skeptical theories” CONTACT Lisa Feldman Barrett [email protected] Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 125 Nightingale Hall, Boston, MA 02115-5000, USA. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC COMMENTARIES 21 contain Russell’s psychological construction theory (Russell, 2003) Improving How We Map the Conceptual Space of and “dimensional appraisal theories” (both her own and Scherer’s, Emotion Theories which she refers to as “Flavor 2” appraisal theories). These two Identify Essentialism Where It Exists superordinate theory categories are distinguished by whether the emotional phenomena in question form natural kind categories Agnes’s taxonomy can be improved by considering a conceptual with necessary and sufficient features (even if probabilistic), as well distinction that separates a constructionist theory like Russell’s as by the exact sort of causal stimulus-response sequences that are from what she calls dimensional appraisal theories (or Flavor 2 proposed to account for those emotional phenomena. appraisal theories): essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that There is a lot to like about Agnes’s approach. She offers a very within a category, instances named by the same word (such as systematic framework that attempts to bring order to the concep- anger, pride, awe, etc.) or a phrase (e.g., “skeptical emotion theo- tual disorder of the field, sorting and naming, which can feel ries”) share a deep, immutable causal mechanism that makes them immensely gratifying, as Lightman observed. She distinguishes what they are (this is essentialism as described by John Locke). Rus- between theories of emotion, which assume that emotions are sell’s psychological construction theory of emotion contains no organized into categories with a classical organization (of neces- essentialism. By contrast, theories of appraisals-as-mechanisms sary and sufficient features), and those that don’tassumeclassical (including dimensional appraisal theories), like basic emotion theo- categories (for a discussion of classical vs. nonclassical categories, ries, indulge in Lockean essentialism; I have referred to these as see Murphy, 2002; for this discussion applied to emotion con- “classical emotion theories” (Barrett, 2017, in press-a, in press-b). cepts, see Barrett, 2017;Clore&Ortony,1991;Russell,1991). The For example, classical theories of emotion assume that a psycholog- formalizations in her framework require scientists to become ical phenomenon is caused by a dedicated mechanism of the same aware of their own assumptions and goals. As a consequence, it name (e.g., in basic emotion theories, the experience of fear is becomes harder to believe that similarities are real in nature and caused by a “fear” mechanism; in theories of appraisals-as-mecha- that variation within each category is some of kind of error in a nisms, the experience of novelty is caused by a “novelty” mecha- more universal sense. This, alone, makes her analysis useful. nism). Furthermore, classical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Psychology 3131 Professor June Gruber Human Emotion
    Human Emotion Psychology 3131 Professor June Gruber Human Emotion What is an Emotion? QUESTIONS? William James “To the psychologist alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits upside-down?” James, W. (1982). Psychology - Briefer course. New York: Henry Holt. New edition, New York: Harper & Row, 1961. William James “The common man can only say: "Of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden. And so, probably, does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in the presence of certain objects...” James, W. (1982). Psychology - Briefer course. New York: Henry Holt. New edition, New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Roadmap Theories of emotion Components Classification Expert Interview Roadmap TheoriesTheories ofof emotionemotion Components Classification Expert Interview Theories of Emotion Timeline Theories ofEmotion Ancient Greek Enlightenment Darwin William James James-Lange Cannon-Bard Schachter-Singer Lazarus Theories of Emotion Timeline Hippocrates: 4 Humors Aristotle: Moderation principle Ancient Greek “Getting angry or sad is easy and anyone can do it; but doing it... in the right amount, at the right time, and in the right way is not easy, nor can everyone do it.” - ARISTOTLE, Nicomachean Ethics, 11.9, 1109a27 Theories of Emotion Timeline Descartes Spinoza Hume Enlightenment Theories of Emotion Timeline Evolutionary Approach Expression of Emotions in Man & Animals Emotions evolutionarily evolved, serve survival purpose Darwin Immediately a bestseller of it’s time (over 5,000 copies) 1st Scientific Treatment of Emotion Includes survey data Observations of healthy and mentally ill individuals Personal anecdotes (e.g., grief expressions in Darwin’s own family after death) Darwin’s Three Principles Darwin’s Three Principles I.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Emotion Paradox: Categorization and the Experience of Emotion
    Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2006 by 2006, Vol. 10, No. 1, 20–46 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Solving the Emotion Paradox: Categorization and the Experience of Emotion Lisa Feldman Barrett Department of Psychology Boston College In this article, I introduce an emotion paradox: People believe that they know an emo- tion when they see it, and as a consequence assume that emotions are discrete events that can be recognized with some degree of accuracy, but scientists have yet to pro- duce a set of clear and consistent criteria for indicating when an emotion is present and when it is not. I propose one solution to this paradox: People experience an emo- tion when they conceptualize an instance of affective feeling. In this view, the experi- ence of emotion is an act of categorization, guided by embodied knowledge about emotion. The result is a model of emotion experience that has much in common with the social psychological literature on person perception and with literature on em- bodied conceptual knowledge as it has recently been applied to social psychology. Humans experience emotion. For many, experience people feel fear when their fear mechanism has trig- serves as an emotion’s central and defining aspect. We gered, such that this feeling shapes perception and feel the heat of anger, the despair of sadness, the dread decision making and can have important conse- of fear. Most days, at least in North America, each of us quences for social relationships. asks and answers about our emotional state. We talk Although there is accumulating evidence that the about our experiences of emotion over coffee, or dur- experience of emotion can have great consequence for ing a telephone conversation, or in a therapist’s office.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Preprint
    From Electric Shocks to the Electoral College: How Boredom Steers Moral Behavior Meltem Yucel Department of Psychology, University of Virginia Erin C. Westgate Department of Psychology, University of Florida ***Preprint*** To appear in A. Elpidorou (Ed.), The Moral Psychology of Boredom. London: Rowman & Littlefield. From Electric Shocks to the Electoral College: How Boredom Steers Moral Behavior Among charming tales of quirky haircuts conjured up out of boredom, lurk more chilling stories. On June, 2017, motorists in Ireland were disturbed by an odd sight: a man on a bridge, aiming a gun. When police arrived, they found a teenager, perched above an Irish highway overpass, centering passing cars in the sights of his 6mm air rifle. When asked later in court, he explained simply: he was “bored” (Ferguson and McLean 2019). Although boredom has been associated with prosocial behavior (e.g., van Tilburg and Igou 2017), it has also been associated with a wide array of morally questionable and disturbing outcomes, including self-harm (Nederkoorn et al. 2016), reckless driving (Steinberger et al. 2017), and sadism (Pfattheicher et al. 2020). We all experience boredom, from being stuck in airport security lines to reading poorly written book chapters. But what is boredom, why do we experience it, and what happens when we do? We suggest a new take on this everyday emotion as an important and useful cue that we are not cognitively engaged in meaningful experiences. According to the Meaning and Attentional Components (MAC) model of boredom, people feel bored when they cannot successfully engage their attention in meaningful activities. Boredom can be painful, but it provides important feedback about our lives, by signaling a lack of meaningful attentional engagement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Psychology: Connecting Mind to Brain
    PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE The Future of Psychology Connecting Mind to Brain Lisa Feldman Barrett Boston College, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School ABSTRACT—Psychological states such as thoughts and feel- footbridge and more like a tightrope requiring lightness of foot and ings are real. Brain states are real. The problem is that the a really strong safety net. Mind–brain, and relatedly, behavior– two are not real in the same way, creating the mind–brain brain, correspondence continue to be central issues in psychology, correspondence problem. In this article, I present a possible and they remain the largest challenge in 21st-century psychology. solution to this problem that involves two suggestions. First, The difficulty in linking the human mind to behavior on the one complex psychological states such as emotion and cognition hand and to the brain on the other is rooted, ironically enough, in can be thought of as constructed events that can be causally the way the human brain itself works. Human brains categorize reduced to a set of more basic, psychologically primitive continuously, effortlessly, and relentlessly. Categorization plays a ingredients that are more clearly respected by the brain. fundamental role in every human activity, including science. Second, complex psychological categories like emotion and Categorizing functions like a chisel, dividing up the sensory world cognition are the phenomena that require explanation in into figure and ground, leading us to attend to certain features and psychology, and, therefore, they cannot be abandoned by to ignore others. Via the process of categorization, the brain science. Describing the content and structure of these cate- transforms only some sensory stimulation into information.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Pitfalls and New Directions in the Neuroscience of Emotion
    G Model NSL-32985; No. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS Neuroscience Letters xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Neuroscience Letters jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neulet Review article Historical pitfalls and new directions in the neuroscience of emotion a,b,∗ c Lisa Feldman Barrett , Ajay B. Satpute a Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States b Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging and Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA, United States c Departments of Psychology and Neuroscience, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, United States h i g h l i g h t s • A dynamic, systems-based neuroscience view of emotion is proposed. • An emotion word refers to a population of highly variable, situated instances. • Emotions are not reactions to the world, but are predictions corrected by sensory inputs. • Prediction signals are concepts that categorize and explain the causes of sensations. • Affect is a property of consciousness and is not synonymous with emotion. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: In this article, we offer a brief history summarizing the last century of neuroscientific study of emotion, Received 2 April 2017 highlighting dominant themes that run through various schools of thought. We then summarize the Received in revised form 25 July 2017 current state of the field, followed by six key points for scientific progress that are inspired by a multi-level Accepted 25 July 2017 constructivist theory of emotion. Available online xxx © 2017 Elsevier B.V.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Lisa Feldman Barrett
    CURRICULUM VITAE Lisa Feldman Barrett INFORMATION Northeastern University: Massachusetts General Hospital - East: Department of Psychology Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, and 253 Nightingale Hall Psychiatric Neuroimaging Research Program & Northeastern University Gerontology Research Unit Boston, MA 02115 Building 149, 13th Street, Rm. 10-018 617.373.2044 (voice) Charlestown, MA 02129 617.373-8714 (fax) 617.724.2324 (voice) Internet Correspondence: [email protected] http://www.affective-science.org h-index = 78 (Google Scholar) EDUCATION 2004 Fellow, National Science Foundation Advanced Training Institute in Immersive Virtual Environment Technology and Social Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara 2000 Fellow, American Psychological Association's Advanced Training Institute in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Boston. 1995 Fellow, National Science Foundation Training Institute for Cardiovascular Approaches to Social Psychophysiology, State University of New York, Buffalo. 1992 Ph.D., Clinical Psychology, University of Waterloo 1992 Clinical Internship, University of Manitoba Medical School 1986 B.Sc., Psychology, with honors, University of Toronto ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 2013- University Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Northeastern University 2010-2013 Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Northeastern University 2003-2010 Professor of Psychology, Boston College 1999-2003 Associate Professor of Psychology, Boston College 1996-1999 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boston College 1992-1996 Assistant Professor
    [Show full text]
  • POL 373H1F: the Emotions and Political Theory
    POL 373Y: The Emotions and Political Theory Lectures: Wednesdays 12 to 2 Instructor: Rebecca Kingston, Associate Professor of Political Science Office Hours: Wednesdays 3 to 5, Sid Smith 3117 Contact info: (416) 946- 0187 or [email protected] Course Description: Despite some renderings of the art of proper political thinking as the search for the supremacy of reason over passion, recent scholarship across the humanities and social sciences has revealed the multiple ways in which emotion can be recognised as a key component of morality and good politics. Revisionist approaches to the history of political thought have come to recognise that many political theorists writing prior to the twentieth century were more receptive to emotion as a positive political force than previously acknowledged. Through deeper exploration of the history of political thought, theorists have found more appealing and sophisticated accounts of the place that emotions play in political life and in normative theories of morals and politics. In this context, this course has two objectives. The first objective is to explore the work of some important thinkers in the history of political thought with a focus on their conception of emotion and of emotion’s place in political life. While thinkers are chosen selectively, a reading of their ideas will provide us with a map of competing ways in which an appreciation of emotion can be understood and integrated into a theory of politics. The first half of the course will allow students to see some of the historical development of competing models of the place of emotion in politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Science of Emotions with Lisa Feldman Barrett Full Episode
    The New Science of Emotions with Lisa Feldman Barrett Full Episode Transcript With Your Host The Brainfluence Podcast with Roger Dooley The New Science of Emotions with Lisa Feldman Barrett Welcome to the Brainfluence Podcast with Roger Dooley, author, speaker and educator on neuromarketing and the psychology of persuasion. Every week, we talk with thought leaders that will help you improve your influence with factual evidence and concrete research. Introducing your host, Roger Dooley. Roger Dooley: Welcome to the Brainfluence Podcast. I'm Roger Dooley. As marketers, as leaders, and team members, and in many other roles, we all know how important emotions are. The driving force behind neuro- marketing is the understanding that humans are not logical robots making rational decisions. Our guest this week is a true expert in emotions. She's conducting original research that some say is changing our understanding of the science of emotion in the same way that relativity revolutionized physics and natural selection changed biology. She is a university distinguished professor of psychology at Northeastern University and directs the Affective Science Lab there and that's Affective with an A, by the way, although they are probably effected with an E there as well. Her new book is How Emotions Are Made. The Secret Life of the Brain. Welcome to the show, Lisa Feldman Barrett. Lisa Barrett: Thanks so much for inviting me on your show, Roger. Roger Dooley: Great. Let me start by saying, Lisa, that scientists like you are making life really difficult for people like me, who try to turn academic research into practical business advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Actually Embodied Emotions
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2018 Actually Embodied Emotions Jordan Christopher Victor Taylor University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons, and the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Jordan Christopher Victor, "Actually Embodied Emotions" (2018). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 3192. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3192 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3192 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Actually Embodied Emotions Abstract This dissertation offers a theory of emotion called the primitivist theory. Emotions are defined as bodily caused affective states. It derives key principles from William James’s feeling theory of emotion, which states that emotions are felt experiences of bodily changes triggered by sensory stimuli (James, 1884; James, 1890). However, James’s theory is commonly misinterpreted, leading to its dismissal by contemporary philosophers and psychologists. Chapter 1 therefore analyzes James’s theory and compares it against contemporary treatments. It demonstrates that a rehabilitated Jamesian theory promises to benefit contemporary emotion research. Chapter 2 investigates James’s legacy, as numerous alterations of his theory have influenced the field of emotion research over the past fifty years, including so-called neo-Jamesian theories. This chapter argues that all these variations of the Jamesian theory assume that emotions require mental causes, whether in the form of evaluative judgments or perceptual contents. But this demand is not present in James’s theory. Nor, as Chapter 3 demonstrates, is this assumption necessary or even preferable for a fecund theory that explains human and non-human emotions.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotional Granularity: Definition, Measurement, and Relationship to Cardiovascular Physiological Activity
    Emotional Granularity: Definition, Measurement, and Relationship to Cardiovascular Physiological Activity by Katie Hoemann B.A. in Anthropology and Spanish, Northwestern University M.A. in Cognitive Linguistics, Bangor University, Wales A dissertation submitted to The Faculty of the College of Science of Northeastern University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 15th, 2020 Dissertation directed by Lisa Feldman Barrett University Distinguished Professor of Psychology 1 Dedication My deepest gratitude goes to the dear friends and colleagues in and around Boston who provided much-needed personal (as well as academic) support over the years, among them: Jeff Dyer, Emil Moldovan, Dylan Rose, Sarah Sohm, Nicole Betz, Isha Vicaria, Rob Rutherford, James Stanfill, Erienne Weine, Sam Simmers, Jordan Theriault, Amelia Brown, and Erik Nook. Ludger: Of the seven years we have known each other, I have been working toward this for six. In that time you have fed me with love, patience, and countless dinners. I am looking forward to our next adventures, and to doing more of the cooking. Ben: The human mind and the human heart are profoundly complex. I have spent these years thinking about many incredible things. We have so much to talk about. And Mom and Dad. I have previously stated that the curiosity you have instilled in me is the greatest gift of all. For present purposes, I might have to redact that in favor of my ability to defy sleep, which I presumably inherited from Mom. The love of words is pretty good, too, Dad. 2 Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the intellectual stimulation and collaboration of a diverse range of researchers throughout psychology, linguistics, and affective science at large.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Supervised and Unsupervised Approaches to Emotion Categorization in the Human Brain, Body, and Subjective Experience
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Comparing supervised and unsupervised approaches to emotion categorization in the human brain, body, and subjective experience Bahar Azari1,9, Christiana Westlin2,9, Ajay B. Satpute2, J. Benjamin Hutchinson3, Philip A. Kragel4, Katie Hoemann2, Zulqarnain Khan1, Jolie B. Wormwood5, Karen S. Quigley2,6, Deniz Erdogmus1, Jennifer Dy1, Dana H. Brooks1,10* & Lisa Feldman Barrett2,7,8,10* Machine learning methods provide powerful tools to map physical measurements to scientifc categories. But are such methods suitable for discovering the ground truth about psychological categories? We use the science of emotion as a test case to explore this question. In studies of emotion, researchers use supervised classifers, guided by emotion labels, to attempt to discover biomarkers in the brain or body for the corresponding emotion categories. This practice relies on the assumption that the labels refer to objective categories that can be discovered. Here, we critically examine this approach across three distinct datasets collected during emotional episodes—measuring the human brain, body, and subjective experience—and compare supervised classifcation solutions with those from unsupervised clustering in which no labels are assigned to the data. We conclude with a set of recommendations to guide researchers towards meaningful, data-driven discoveries in the science of emotion and beyond. Psychology became a science in the mid-19th century when scholars frst used the research methods of physiol- ogy and neurology to search for the physical basis of mental categories that were inherited from ancient Western mental philosophy—categories that describe thinking, feeling, perceiving and acting. Scientifc leaders of the day (e.g.1,2) warned that these common-sense categories, which philosophers call “folk psychology”3–7, would not map cleanly to physical measurements.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewpoints: Approaches to Defining and Investigating Fear
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION q&a In the format provided by the authors and unedited. Viewpoints: Approaches to defining and investigating fear Interviewed by Dean Mobbs 1, Ralph Adolphs 1, Michael S. Fanselow 2, Lisa Feldman Barrett3,4, Joseph E. LeDoux5,6,7, Kerry Ressler8,9 and Kay M. Tye10 NatURE NEUROSCIENCE | www.nature.com/natureneuroscience Supplementary Note 1 Fear: The Awareness that You Are in Harm’s Way Joseph LeDoux A Snapshot of My view of Fear Fear is a conscious experience in which you come to believe that you are about to be harmed (LeDoux, 2015, 2017, 2019; LeDoux and Pine, 2016; LeDoux and Brown, 2017; LeDoux and Hofmann, 2018; LeDoux et al, 2018). Such a subjective state of inner awareness, of phenomenological consciousness (LeDoux, 2019; Brown et al, 2019), can result from the presence of an innate or learned threat, but also by misattributing danger to a benign stimulus or situation, or also by imagining the possibility of harm in the near or distal future, even when such a possibility is improbable or even physically impossible. All that is necessary is your expectation or prediction that this is the case, which occurs when a mental model of fear is pattern-completed using your ‘fear schema’--the unique collection of memories about threat, fear, danger, that you have accumulated throughout life. But if you don’t apprehend that it is you that is to be harmed by the threat, you cannot experience fear—no self, no fear. Your ‘self schema,’ your repository of ‘you,’ must therefore also be involved in the mental model for the experience of fear to result.
    [Show full text]