James-Lange theory of emotion

[dslc1000]

The James-Lange theory states that we experience emotion in response to physiological changes in our body. For example, we feel sad because we cry.

 

The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion on the other hand, says basically the opposite: that we cry because we are sad.

 

I've just discovered a new theory: Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory.

 

These are actually all explained on this page.

 

I myself am exploring the hypothesis that there are two components to an emotion (i.e. two things which constitute an emotion):

(i) the physiological changes, and

(ii) the thoughts (imagined sensations - words, pictures) which accompany these physiological changes.

(..similar to the Schacter's Two Factor Theory?)

 

I'd like to hear your opinion on which of these theories is correct. Also, can anyone tell me what the most widely-accepted one in the scientific community is?

 

[blike]

Come to think of it, I've never thought about it in terms of the James-Lange theory. What is his argument in support of his theory? Does he attempt to explain why things that are purely emotional would cause physiological change before an emotional change?

[Crash]

Surely emotion is brought on by physiological change?

[Kedas]

my point of view:

a physical change has an other physical change as reaction.

(Thanks Newton )

 

Thoughts/emotions are physical changes.

even if you do't like that idea

[Glider]

blike said in post # :

Come to think of it, I've never thought about it in terms of the James-Lange theory. What is his argument in support of his theory? Does he attempt to explain why things that are purely emotional would cause physiological change before an emotional change?

 

The theory was developed independently by Williams James and Carl Lange. Their argument (as far as I recall) was that immediate response to emotional stimuli was visceral (autonomic), and that the emotional response was determined by these autonomic changes. The argument has been pretty much trashed by now, on the basis that autonomic changes are comparitively slow, where emotional responses can occur before the individual is even consciously aware of the stimulus (within 250 ms). Moreover, there are limited characteristic patterns of autonomic response, generally based upon fight or flight, but there are a much greater range of emotional states, so autonomic patterns of arousal cannot account for anywhere near the complete range of emotions for which they were supposed to be responsible.

 

Schacter & Singer (1982) proposed the cognitive labelling theory, which states that physical arousal was inherently neutral, and that it was the cognitive evaluation of the context which determined the resulting emotional state. The idea had some merit, but their experiment was flawed. They injected adrenaline into participants (telling them it was something else), and then placed them in a waiting room with an experimental confederate who acted either happy or angry. The results showed that perticipants in the company of the 'happy' confederate labelled their state of arousal (which was due to the adrenaline) as happiness, and those in the company of the 'angry' confederate labelled their arousal as anger.

 

The main flaw here is that the experiment was based on the assumption that emotion is caused by autonomic arousal (i.e. that autonomic arousal precedes emotion), and so was based on circular reasoning and arguably didn't actually test anything.

[Pinch Paxton]

The emotions of the Human species are not balanced. Distress should be an evolutionary advantage for a species to survive. A partner gets killed, you blow up, and kill the predator. But humans have another option which is suicide. This is probably because society doesn't view revenge as a decent option. This kind of society probably make emotion more confusing than they need to be, because we have laws that prevent us from using them how they are supposed to be used. Anyhow, because of my previous statement, it would be psychological stress that causes us to cry, as part of the human nature to survive.

 

Pincho.

[dslc1000]

Glider seems to have answered your question Blike. That's interesting info Glider - I'll have to go away and have a think about it. Before I do though, I guess the proponents of the James-Lange theory would offer the counter-argument that: strip away the phsiological changes associated with, say, anger, such as tensed muscles etc. and it's hard to imagine actually being angry. I've tried it myself, and I have to say, it's a good point. If I try to become angry without actually allowing my muscles to tense etc., I don't experience what I would actually consider the emotion of anger.

P.S. My computer is crashing at the mo, so it might take a while for me to get back to you.

[Quixix]

The James-Lange theory, is rather confusing about emotions and feelings. I find A. Damasio 's (The feeling of What Happens) theories much more developped and credible. The James original quote, is also confusing as far as body changes and body actions go.

I believe that LeDoux (The Emotional Brain), agrees quite well with Damasio. First we have an emotion generated by a perception, afterwards we have the feelings of our bodily changes, that may be conscious or not

[LucidDreamer]

I think the Cannon-Bard theory is probably a more accurate description of the initiation of an emotional state. However, I think there is truth to both of these theories. I think that the emotional state works like a cycle. You become nervous, which causes lots of tension in your muscles. Then the tension in your muscles acts as a stimulus that maintains a nervous state. I think the two function together to regulate your emotional states. I think that sometimes prolonged periods of stress cause your body to become habitually tensed. Often the tension remains after the initiating factor has already been resolved and that muscle tension keeps your mind stressed. That's probably why it’s useful to get a massage to break the cycle of stress.

[Quixix]

"You become nervous, which causes lots of tension in your muscles"

WHen you "become nervous". What is the cause and the mechanism by which you do?.

Why and how do your muscles tense?

I don't think that these have much to do with emotions.

[YT2095]

it CAN work both ways however, the physical state can affect the emotional one or at least bring about changes (as can deliberate mental imagery).

 

forcing a smile for a period of time (idealy alone and without external stress) cannot help but to make you feel happier for instance.

 

Yawning deliberately will eventualy make you feel tired (it`s a good trick to use if you can`t get to sleep).

 

it`s quite possibly a snowball effect tempered by the constant incoming stream of information from our senses guiding us as to how to behave next.

 

do we run because we`re scared, or are we scared because we run?

[Quixix]

You can not force a complete smile. You can simulate a smile or remember something that makes you smile. Some of your facial muscles only move by unconscious parts of your brain. That's why it is so difficult to be a decent actor - and why salesmen smiles look su phony.

[YT2095]

that`s not at all what I`m discussing.

it`s been proven that "MAKING" youself smile under the conditions that I outlined DOES bring about chemical and emotional change.

and so, that would say to me that it`s a 2 way reaction, regardless of the mechanisms at play.

 

a salesman may well walk back down your garden pathway with a frown soon after, thereby countering any positive effect!

[Kedas]

a change of X results in physiological and emotional changes.

I know but you can guess what X is.

[YT2095]

yeah, that too )))

[Kedas]

I don't think that physiological and emotional changes can change each other but both can change X therefor indirectly they can change each other.

[YT2095]

`X` is the mechanism, there was no interest as far as I could see, in that mechanism in the original post/question.

I AM in agreement with you however

[Kedas]

No 'X' is just something that I didn't type, not related to other post.

[YT2095]

I later took X to mean the mechanism (hormonal, enzyematic, chemical etc...) that plays a role in the transition between a forced physiological state and the resultant psychological state.

 

my bad

[Guest pattarkutty]

see, i have not studied anything in this area, but here r a few things my logic tells me.

 

i believe that for most things concerning physical objects, we can have definite answers depending on how we investigate.

 

for cases, where we have to disturb the system, we can only get answers in terms of probability. (heisenberg's principle)

 

now regarding human existance, it is a combination of physical and mental existances.

On analysis, we find no evidence of mental existance without physical. But there r cases where its possible to exist physically without much mental activity. (terris case). But u will agree that u cannot "think" anymore if someone smashes ur brain.

 

But this distinction is not true, since we can attribute all mental existance to subtle motions of electrons or fluctuations of voltage in our brain.

(a complex logical system defined on quantum theories that r and that r yet to be discovered.)

 

so now since, all emotions can be attributed to be results of physical changes, their cause as it is practically seen can be attributed to physical changes. (cause and effect)

 

so it is right to say that the state of emotions resulting from subtle changes in the nanoscopic human body r triggered by changes affected to it by changes percieved through sensory system of the human body and the result of which r then reflected through the same sensory systems and also experienced in the mind.

 

since the whole analysis takes place in the mind, the emotion which r experienced in the mind r to happen faster than the physical changes outside which will take time to be transmitted.(physical like tears)

 

now after that, these physical changes will affect the environment and cause a different mind set and in turn result in a change in itself.

 

the tricky part in this continous cycle is the point when the person performs a logical test to see which of these happen first.

 

he will realise that factor which is happenning at the time of his analysis.

 

so depending on this, different people find emotion to happen first or physical change first.

 

but since on a nano scale, there is no difference between the two, both r

true.

 

emotions come first and physical changes also come first.

 

u have to be cautious against things i said.....i might be completely false,

but uncertainity will add some truth to it...