Question

Consider the way emotions have been perceived in a negative light through much of history, both by philosophers (i.e., Plato, Descartes) and by the Christian church (i.e, equating emotions with our “fleshly” nature). Contemporary views from various directions (i.e., neuroscience researchers, Scripture) tend to view emotion/feelings in a more positive light.

Should the field of psychology (i.e., Freud, behaviorists, humanistic psychologists) be given credit for this shift in perception? 250 words or more

Answer 1

William James in 1884 and Carl Lange in 1885 gave the first scientific theory, in a revolutionary “peripheral” approach to emotion separately. The theory was the focus of the first theoretical concept of emotion. The concentration on emotion or a particular emotion is considered to be the perception of a specific peripheral arousal pattern, i.e. we experience fear because we are sweating. It should be underlined that, according to James, this definition of emotion is only applicable to emotions when a physical response is associated with the situation. In 1885, According to Lange, If one tremble when subjected to a fearful situation, does the tremble occur because of the fearful situation or does the bodily response direct the emotion of fear? The second option is supported by James and Lange. The authors recaptured the time-honoured idea that each emotion has its own pattern of physiological changes even though their concept of emotion was against the traditional concept of emotion. The theories of James-Lange and Cannon-Bard places the importance of “cognition” in emotion.

The basic emotion perspective started with Darwin, and the fundamental assumptions were given by theorists such as Dewey, Watson, Allport, and McDougall. Second, the appraisal perspective was started by Arnold and brought in a revolutionary change in the cognitive psychology, it actually has roots in the psychological literature much earlier, with important works by Young during the Dark Ages and Irons and Dewey in the Golden Years. Third, basic emotion and appraisal traditions are not the only approaches to emotion that can be found in the historical literature. The third tradition of emotion theorizing—a psychological constructionist approach—was clearly articulated during the first century of psychology. Psychological constructionist works have been referred to by various names that refer to the psychological ingredients discussed by a given author (e.g., “neo-Jamesian” or “dimensional”), but these labels miss the fundamental assumptions that characterize a psychological constructionist perspective: all psychological states, whether called emotion or not, are constructed (or emerge) from the operation of more basic psychological mechanisms. It is these psychological ingredients, and the processes by which they combine, that psychology should target in its scientific approach to emotion. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly for the field of emotion, the dichotomies nature of emotion defines our current beliefs and preferences than an accurate representation of what was written in the past.

Historically nonemotional processes like language may play a role in the experience and perception of emotion. The psychological constructionist approach hypothesizes that cognition and emotion are both involved in the theoretical construct of emotion. According to theorists, psychology may be better understood to the neurosciences if a psychological constructionist approach is adopted. The brain might better respect the psychological ingredients involved in the mental states called “feeling” or “thinking” than those phenomena that the ingredients create.

Looking at the above discussion it can be assumed that cognitive psychologists have to be given credit for the evolution of the concept of emotion.