An Introduction |
Top |
Emotions
Emotion has been defined as a particular psychological state of feeling,
such as fear, anger, joy, and sorrow. The feeling often includes action
tendencies and tends to trigger certain perceptual and cognitive
processes. Most experts agree that emotion is a causal factor or
influence in thoughts, actions, personalities, and social relationships.
The concept of
emotion that will be developed here is a multiaspect, or multilevel,
one, considering structure and functions at the levels of
neurophysiology, emotion expression, and emotion experience (feeling).
It should be noted, however, that not all of the numerous definitions
that can be found in emotion literature fit into this multilevel
concept. The definitions, which reflect differences in the interests and
theoretical orientations of the authors, can be reduced to three
categories concerned with structure and three concerned with functions.
The three structural categories are the three levels, or aspects, that
are included in the multilevel concept. The first of these categories of
definition focuses on the neurophysiological processes underlying or
accompanying emotions, the second on expression, or emotional behaviour,
and the third on the subjective experience, or conscious aspect, of
emotion.
Of the three
categories of definition related to functions, the first defines
emotions in terms of their adaptive or disruptive influences. The second
category defines emotion in terms of motivation and considers it as part
of the same class of phenomena that contains physiological drives, such
as pain, thirst, and the need for elimination. The third category
concerned with functions consists of definitions that attempt to
distinguish between emotion and other psychological processes.
A multilevel
definition of emotion essentially subsumes definitions that focus on one
of the three structural categories of neural processes, expressive
behaviour, and subjective experience, and elaborations and extensions of
such a definition would consider concerns of the three categories
related to functions. In summary, the foregoing consideration of
definitions of emotion suggests that a multilevel concept comes closest
to a consensus viewpoint among emotion theorists and provides a way of
resolving the complex issue of definition. Thus, a specific emotion is a
particular set of neural processes that gives rise to a particular
configuration of expressive behaviours and a particular feeling state or
quality of consciousness that has motivational and adaptive functions.
Under some circumstances extremely intense emotion may become
disruptive.
http://universityofzafarana.freeservers.com/Directorio/Marraquex/bibliografia/brit_emo.htm
|
Emotion, Human in the Encyclopaedia Britannica |
Top |
The following
text is the exact text of the entry 'Emotion, Human' in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.
Copyright
Encyclopaedia Britannica 1994-1998
any of a number of extremely complex phenomena
that are a synthesis of subjective experience, expressive behaviour,
and neurochemical activity. Though psychologists have not found a
simple yet comprehensive definition of emotion, they have generally
agreed that emotions entail, to varying degrees, awareness of one's
environment or situation, bodily reactions, and approach or
withdrawal behaviour.
A brief
treatment of emotion follows.
Contemporary
thinking on emotion is grounded in psychological experimentation,
but the use of the experimental method in psychology came only after
about 1850. The pioneer in this area was the German psychologist
Wilhelm Wundt, who performed experiments in which subjects
provided introspective reports of their responses to stimuli that
were varied in a controlled way. Contemporary with Wundt's work was
a theory, offered by English naturalist
Charles Darwin, that helped to focus investigation into emotion.
In this theory Darwin suggested that emotional behaviour in animals
was a vestige of adaptive behaviour from an earlier stage of the
given species' development.
A particularly
influential early theory of emotion was proposed independently by
the American psychologist
William James and the Danish physician
Carl Georg Lange. The
James-Lange theory firmly links mental states to physiological
processes: it holds that an emotion is a perception of phenomena
within the body. When a person sees a frightening sight, for
example, the body immediately responds in certain ways (e.g.,
the heart rate increases). The perception of bodily response to the
original stimulus constitutes the emotion of
fear, according to the James-Lange view. Thus people are happy
because they smile, sad because they cry, and afraid because they
flee.
It has been
shown that emotions are accompanied by physiological changes
manifested by excitation of the sympathetic division of the
autonomic nervous system; specifically, these changes can be
detected in the
galvanic skin response (see
psychogalvanic reflex),
in which the electrical conductivity of the skin varies, and also in
the heart rate, blood pressure, perspiration, and others. But
according to the James-Lange view, these physiological changes would
themselves be stimulated by a perception. It is argued that, by the
time a signal from the senses reaches the appropriate centre in the
brain, physiological changes have already taken place to cause
the signal which then produces the feeling of the emotion. This
element of the James-Lange view raised some serious objections.
An American
physiologist,
Walter B. Cannon, proposed a theory that became one of the chief
arguments against the James-Lange view. Cannon showed that subjects
reacted emotionally even when nerves connecting the central nervous
system to various organs were severed, suggesting that physiological
changes were not necessarily the primary cause of emotion. Cannon
also proposed that signals from the senses may be received by the
thalamus, which performs the dual function of providing the
emotional content to the appropriate perceptual centre and
transmitting the stimulus to other parts of the body.
Further research
has called into question Cannon's view of the preeminence of the
thalamus for emotions. But the basic insight of his theory continues
to be upheld, with more sophisticated anatomical support. Cannon's
successors examined a structure called the
reticular formation, in the centre of the brain stem. Electrical
activity throughout the brain was found to be accompanied by
electrical activity in the reticular formation. Emotion is held to
be the result of a certain level of reticular-formation activation,
a level less than that necessary to sustain such brain functions as
perception and behaviour. Because the reticular formation serves to
integrate virtually all brain activity, any perception or action is
necessarily infused with emotional content.
A
perceptual-motivational theory of emotion was individually proposed
by American psychologists
Magda Arnold, in 1960, and R.W. Leeper, in 1965. According to
the theory, emotions are no more than strong motivational or drive
states (see
motivation). A
motivational state is an inner condition of imbalance (for
example, thirst) that provokes an organism to take some remedial
action (in this case, to search for a drink). Although this approach
to emotion was shown to be incomplete, later research gave evidence
of what appear to be anatomical mechanisms of motivation.
Significantly, these mechanisms serve a function in emotional
behaviour as well.
The mechanisms
in question involve the
hypothalamus, a small structure near the base of the brain. The
hypothalamus plays a very complex role in regulating a variety of
physiological processes. It is also involved in behaviour that
expresses the emotions of anger and fear. The results of complicated
experiments involving electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus and
related brain structures have led researchers to propose that
emotions result from a dynamic process of stimulation and inhibition
of certain bodily movements, as regulated by the hypothalamus.
An objection to
this view is that it ignores the cognitive element in emotions.
Presumably the same physiological events might be said to underlie
emotions directed at different objects; how then are the emotions to
be distinguished? It is here that the importance of perception and
learning to discussions of emotion is apparent. However, the
cognitive element in emotion cannot be processed by the relatively
simple brain structures considered so far. While these can lead to
emotional expression, the cognitive element must be processed by
more complex structures found in higher parts of the brain.
Modern
researchers often view emotions in three components, physiological,
expressive, and experiential, each of which can be studied in terms
of structure and functions.
What is E M O T
I O N
An
emotion, as it is commonly known, is a distinct feeling or
quality of consciousness, such as joy or sadness, that reflects the
personal significance of an emotion-arousing event. In modern times
the subject of emotion has become part of the subject matter of
several scientific disciplines--biology, psychology, psychiatry,
anthropology, and sociology. Emotions are central to the issues of
human survival and adaptation. They motivate the development of
moral behaviour, which lies at the very root of civilization.
Emotions influence empathic and altruistic behaviour, and they play
a role in the creative processes of the mind. They affect the basic
processes of perception and influence the way humans conceive and
interpret the world around them. Evidence suggests that emotions
shape many other aspects of human life and human affairs. Clinical
psychologists and psychiatrists often describe problems of
adjustment and types of psychopathology as "emotional problems,"
mental conditions that an estimated 1 in 3 Americans, for example,
suffers from during his or her lifetime.
The subject of
emotion is studied from a wide range of views. Behaviorally oriented
neuroscientists study the neurophysiology and neuroanatomy of
emotions and the relations between neural processes and the
expression and experience of emotion. Social psychologists and
cultural anthropologists study similarities and differences among
cultures by the way emotions are expressed and conceptualized.
Philosophers are interested in the role of emotions in rationality,
thought, character development, and values. Novelists, playwrights,
and poets are interested in emotions as the motivations and defining
features of fictional characters and as vehicles for communicating
the meaning and significance of events.
HUMANISTIC
BACKGROUND
Orators, literary artists, and philosophers have
recognized emotions as part of human nature since recorded history.
Homer's
Iliad contains vivid descriptions of the emotions of the
characters; the goddess Athena frequently goes among Agamemnon's
troops playing upon their emotions, attempting to allay their fears
and bolster their courage for battle. Ancient philosophers discussed
the emotions at length, and from these discussions it appears that
the basic meanings of emotion concepts are timeless. For example, in
the Rhetoric,
Aristotle described the significance, causes, and consequences
of the experiences of anger, fear, and shame in much the same way as
contemporary writers. He observed that anger is caused by undeserved
slight, fear by the perception of danger, and shame by deeds that
bring disgrace or dishonour. His understanding of the relations
among emotions also has a modern ring. In contrasting the young and
the old, he said of the young, And they are more
courageous, for they are full of passion and hope, and the former of
these prevents them fearing, while the latter inspires them with
confidence, for no one fears when angry, and hope of some advantage
inspires confidence.
Literature.
The use of emotion words in literary works serves
several purposes. They help define the motivations and personalities
of the characters in a play or novel, and they help the reader to
understand and identify with characters and to experience
vicariously their emotions.
Shakespeare, for example, was a master at expressing emotion
through his characters and eliciting emotions from the audience. His
work also contains quite accurate descriptions of emotional
expressions. An example in
Henry V is the king's effort to ready his soldiers for
battle:
Then imitate the
action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a
terrible aspect; Let it pry through the portage of the head Like the
brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a
galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swill'd with the
wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril
wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full
height.
(Act III, scene 1)
In modern times
James Joyce used emotion words and words with emotional
connotation to powerful effect. In
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, much of Stephen
Dedalus' mood and character are revealed in a few lines describing a
time when he was drinking with his cronies and trying to overcome
his sense of alienation from his father:
His mind seemed
older than theirs: it shone coldly on their strifes and happiness
and regrets like a moon upon a younger earth. . . . Nothing stirred
within his soul but a cold and cruel and loveless lust. His
childhood was dead or lost and with it his soul capable of simple
joys, and he was drifting amid life like the barren shell of the
moon.
According to the literary critic Rosemarie
Battaglia, the emotion-arousing words cold, cruel, loveless, dead,
lost, and barren resonate with a sense of Stephen's withdrawal from
his social world.
Other modern
writers have made frank use of psychological concepts of emotion and
emotion-related processes, particularly those introduced by Sigmund
Freud. Thus, for example, the author's characters may be motivated
by unconscious processes, feelings they cannot label and articulate
because the fundamental underlying ideation associated with the
feelings has been repressed.
|
Philosophy of Emotions |
Top |
Using
Aristotle's system of causal explanation, the 16th-century British
philosopher John Rainolds defined emotion as follows: the efficient cause of
emotions is God, who implanted them; the material cause is good and evil
human things; the formal cause is a commotion of the soul, impelled by the
sight of things; and the final cause is seeking good and fleeing evil. The
American philosopher L.D. Green's commentary on Rainolds' thesis indicates
that Rainolds was not faithful to Aristotle's own discussions of emotion.
One thing that Aristotle
did advocate was moderation of emotions, allowing them to have an effect
only at the right time and in the right manner. Rainolds noted that the
Aristotelian thinker Cicero saw emotions as beneficial--fear making humans
careful, compassion and sadness leading to mercy, and anger whetting
courage. These thoughts about emotion are similar to those of some modern
theorists.
For Rainolds, the
emotions are the active, energizing aspects of human nature. Although the
intellect exercises control over emotions, intellect can have no impact
without emotion. Rainolds was specifically concerned with the effects of
emotion on rhetoric, but he saw rhetoric as a principal means of influencing
human behaviour and affairs. He believed that the passions [emotions]
must be excited, not for the harm they do but for the good, not so they
twist the straight but that they straighten the crooked; so they ward off
vice, iniquity, and disgrace; so that they defend virtue, justice, and
probity.
Benedict de Spinoza in the 17th century described emotions in much the
same way as Rainolds did, but he discussed them in relation to action rather
than to language. He saw emotions as bodily changes that result in the
amplification or attenuation of action and as processes that can facilitate
or impede action. For Spinoza, emotion also included the ideas, or mental
representations, of the bodily changes in emotion.
Blaise Pascal and
David Hume reversed Rainolds' position by assuming the primacy of
emotion in human behaviour. Hume said that reason is the slave of the
passions (emotions), and Pascal observed in Pensées that "the heart
has reasons that reason does not know." Although Hume believed that passions
(emotions) rule reason or intellect, he thought the dominant passion should
be moral sentiment. Some contemporary psychologists trace morality to
empathy and empathy to discrete emotions including sadness, sorrow,
compassion, and guilt.
Since Rainolds lectured
on emotions at Oxford, philosophers have considered many questions related
to emotions: Are they active or passive? Can they be explained by
neurophysiological processes and reduced to material phenomena? Are they
rational or nonrational? Are they voluntary or involuntary? Characterizing
or categorizing emotions according to these dichotomies has resulted in yet
other classifications or distinctions.
Ultimately, emotion
concepts resist definition by way of dichotomous distinctions. Emotions are
generally active and tend to generate action and cognition, but extreme fear
may cause behavioral freezing and mental rigidity. Emotion can be explained
on one level in terms of neurochemical processes and on another level in
terms of phenomenology. Emotions are rational in the sense that they serve
adaptive functions and make sense in terms of the individual's perception of
the situation. They are nonrational in the sense that they can exist in the
brain at the neurochemical level and in consciousness as unlabeled feelings
that may be independent of cognitive-rational processes. Emotions are
voluntary in that their expression in older children and adults is subject
to considerable modification and control via cognition and action, and
willful regulation of expression may result in regulation of emotion
experience. Emotions are involuntary in that an effective stimulus elicits
them automatically, without deliberation and conscious choice. Nowhere is
this more evident than in infants and young children, who have little
capacity to modulate or inhibit emotion by means of cognitive processes.
One contemporary
American philosopher, Amélie O. Rorty, espouses a three-part causal history
for emotions, which includes (1) the formative events in a person's past,
including the development of habits of thought, (2) sociocultural factors,
and (3) genetically determined sensitivities and patterns of response. These
are essentially the same factors that are recognized by psychologists, who
frequently reduce the list to two: (1)
experience as mediated by culture and learning and (2) genetic
determinants that unfold with ontogenetic development. The first of these
two causal factors indicates that individual differences in interpretations
of an event or situation lead to different emotions in different persons.
(see also Index:
human genetics)
Some philosophers are
concerned with the question of the rationality of emotion as judged on the
basis of causes and consequences. One resolution is in terms of
appropriateness: an emotion is appropriate if the reasons for it are
adequate, regardless of the reasons against it. There may be a sense,
however, in which emotions are intrinsically nonrational because they can
come into a person's consciousness without that person having considered all
of the relevant reasons for them. In the final analysis, caution should be
used in judging the rationality of emotions.
Another contemporary
philosopher, James Hillman, has been notably effective in using classical
philosophical principles to explain emotions. He has delineated 12 ways that
emotion has been conceptualized in philosophy and psychology. These include
conceptions of emotion as a distinct entity or trait, an accompaniment of
instinct, energy for thought and action, a neurophysiological mechanism and
process, mental representation, signal, conflict, disorder, and creative
organization. This philosopher found each of these conceptions incomplete or
incorrect and returned to Aristotle's system of four causes in an effort to
integrate the information from each of the foregoing approaches to defining
and studying emotions.
For Hillman, the
efficient cause of emotion, described psychologically, consists of conscious
or unconscious mental representations (perceptions, images, or thoughts) and
conflicts between physiological or psychological systems or between a person
and the environment. The efficient cause described physiologically includes
genetic endowment and the neurochemical and hormonal processes involved in
emotion activation. Hillman stated that the material cause of emotion is
energy. He argued that matter, the ultimate source of energy, is relative
and that emotion, as the psychological aspect of general energy, is going on
all the time and is a two-way bridge uniting subject and object.
In considering the
formal cause, one may see emotion as a pattern of neurophysiological and
expressive behaviours and subject-object relations. Hillman concluded that,
in a formal sense, emotion is a total pattern of the soul:
Emotion is the soul as a
complex whole, involving constitution, gross physiology, facial expression
in its social context as well as actions aimed at the environment.
The
final cause, or purpose, of emotion, according to Hillman, can be thought of
in terms of what it achieves: survival (energy release, homeostatic
regulation, and action on the stimulus and environment), signification
(qualification of experience, expression, communication, and values), and
improvement (emergence of energy into consciousness, facilitation of
creative activity, and strengthening of the organization of self and
behaviour). Hillman integrated these various descriptions of final cause in
the concept of change. Emotion occurs in order to actualize change; "emotion
itself is change."
HOW PSYCHOLOGY
CONCEIVES EMOTIONS
In
1872, emotion studies received a boost in scientific status when
Charles Darwin published his seminal treatise The Expressions of the
Emotions in Man and Animals. Twelve years later, the American
philosopher and psychologist
William James, one of the pioneers of psychology in the United States,
published what was to become a famous and controversial theory of emotions.
In it James proposed that an arousing stimulus (such as a poignant memory or
a physical threat) triggers internal physiological processes as well as
external expressive and motor actions and that the feeling of these
physiological and behavioral processes constitutes the emotion. Thus, people
are happy because they smile, sad because they cry, angry because they
frown, and afraid because they run from danger.
A few years later the
Danish physician
Carl Lange published a more constricted theory, maintaining that emotion
is a function of the perception of changes in the visceral organs innervated
by the
autonomic nervous system. Although there were distinctively individual
components in the theories of James and Lange, the theories became linked in
the minds of psychologists and the combination became known as the
James-Lange theory.
The James-Lange theory
was seriously challenged by the American physiologist
Walter B. Cannon, who showed that, among other things, animals whose
viscera were separated from the central nervous system still displayed
emotion expression. Cannon contended that bodily changes were similar for
most kinds of emotions, whereas the James-Lange theory implied a different
bodily pattern of response for different emotions. The James-Lange theory
has remained a more or less permanent fixture in behavioral science
nevertheless, and most psychology textbooks summarize the theory and
Cannon's criticisms of it. Some theories of emotion are classified as neo-Jamesian,
and most theories can be identified or classified on the basis of their
similarities and differences with the landmark James-Lange theory.
Psychological theories
of emotion can be grouped into two broad categories--biosocial and
constructivist. Although this system of categorization is an
oversimplification, it provides a way for the student of emotion to get a
perspective on a particular theory. A contemporary textbook, for example,
describes 20 psychological theories of emotion, and there are many others
that it does not consider.
Many of the differences
between the two categories of emotion theory stem from different assumptions
regarding the relative importance of genetics and life experiences.
Biosocial theories assume that emotions are rooted in biological makeup and
that genes are significant determinants of the threshold and characteristic
intensity level of each basic emotion. In this view, emotional life is a
function of the interaction of genetic tendencies and the evaluative
systems, beliefs, and roles acquired through experience.
Constructivist theories assume that genetic factors are inconsequential
and that emotions are cognitively constructed and derived from experience,
especially from social learning. The constructivists' crucible for emotions
is formed by the interactions of the person with the environment, especially
the social environment. Thus, according to the constructivists, emotions are
a function of appraisals, or evaluations, of the world of culture, and of
what is learned.
EVOLUTIONARY-BIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES
Darwin
included emotions, in particular emotion expressions, in his studies of
evolution. He considered continuity or similarity of expression in animals
and human beings as further evidence of
human evolution from lower forms. His finding that certain emotion
expressions are innate and universal was seen as evidence of the "unity of
the several races." Thus, the expressions, or the language of the emotions,
provide a means of communication among all human beings, regardless of
culture or ethnic origin.
In his work The
Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin made an
explicit value judgment regarding the significance of emotion expressions:
The movements of expression
in the face and body, whatever their origin may have been, are in themselves
of much importance for our welfare. They serve as the first means of
communication between the mother and infant; she smiles approval, and thus
encourages her child on the right path, or frowns disapproval. We readily
perceive sympathy in others by their expression; our sufferings are thus
mitigated and our pleasures increased; and mutual good feeling is thus
strengthened. The movements of expression give vividness and energy to our
spoken words. They reveal the thoughts and intentions of others more truly
than do words, which may be falsified.
From
his studies of emotion expressions, Darwin concluded that some emotion
expressions were due to the "constitution of the nervous system," or our
biological endowment. The implication is that these expressive movements are
part of human nature and have played a role in survival and adaptation.
Darwin thought other expressions were derived from actions that originally
served biologically adaptive functions (e.g., preparation for biting
became the bared teeth of the anger expression). Although he noted that
expressive movements may no longer serve biological functions, he made it
quite clear that they serve critical social and communicative functions.
PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWS
From
the very beginning of scientific psychology, there were voices that spoke of
the significance of emotions for human life. James believed that
"individuality is founded in feeling" and that only through feeling is it
possible "directly to perceive how events happen, and how work is actually
done." The Swiss psychiatrist
Carl Gustav Jung recognized emotion as the primal force in life:
But on the other hand,
emotion is the moment when steel meets flint and a spark is struck forth,
for emotion is the chief source of consciousness. There is no change from
darkness to light or from inertia to movement without emotion.
Psychologists did not rally to the Darwinian thesis on the
evolutionary-adaptive functions of emotions in significant numbers until the
1960s. Several influential volumes following this theme were published in
the 1960s and '70s. For example, the American psychologist Robert Plutchik
echoed Darwinian principles in several of the postulates of his theory:
emotions are present at all levels of animal life, and they serve an
adaptive role in relation to survival issues posed by the environment.
The American
psychologist Silvin Tomkins believed that the emotions constitute the
primary motivational system for human beings. He held that even
physiological drives such as hunger and sex obtain their power from emotions
and that the energizing effects of emotion are necessary to sustain
drive-related actions. In this way, he argued that emotions are essential to
survival and adaptation.
Other theorists and
researchers that follow the Darwinian principles of the survival value and
adaptive value of emotions have emphasized their role in human development
and in the development of social bonds, particularly mother-infant or
parent-child attachment. These researchers have shown that even the very
young infant has a repertoire of emotion expressions translatable into
messages calling for nourishment and affection, both essential ingredients
of healthy development. The distress expression is the infant's all-out cry
for help, the sadness expression an appeal for empathy, and the smile an
invitation to stimulating face-to-face interactions.
Contemporary approaches
to emotion
Contemporary
psychologists are concerned with the activation, or causes, of emotion, its
structure, or components, and its functions or consequences. Each of these
aspects can be considered from both a biosocial and a constructivist view.
On the whole, biosocial theories have been relatively more concerned with
the neurophysiological aspects of emotions and their roles as motivators and
organizers of cognition and action. Constructivists have been relatively
more concerned with explaining the causes of emotion at the experiential
level and cognition-emotion relations in terms of cognitive-linguistic
processes.
STRUCTURES AND
PROCESSES OF EMOTION ACTIVATION
The
question of precisely how an emotion is triggered has been one of the most
captivating and controversial topics in the field. To address the question
properly, one must break it down into more precise parts. Emotion activation
can be divided into three parts: neural processes, bodily (physiological)
changes, and mental (cognitive) activity.
While it is easy for
people to think of things that make them happy or sad, it is not yet
possible to explain precisely how the feelings of joy and sadness occur.
Neuroscience has produced far more information about the processes leading
to the physiological responses and expressive behaviour of emotion than
about those that generate the conscious experience of emotion.
Neural processes.
An
emotion can be activated by causes and processes within the individual or by
a combination of internal and external causes and processes. For example,
within the individual, an infection can cause pain, and pain can activate
anger.
The findings of
neuroscience indicate that stimuli are evaluated for emotional significance
when information from primary receptors (in the visual, tactual, auditory,
or other sensory systems) travels along certain neural pathways to the
limbic forebrain. Scientific data developed by Joseph E. LeDoux show that
auditory fear conditioning involves the transmission of sound signals
through the auditory pathway to the
thalamus (which relays information) in the lower forebrain and thence to
the dorsal
amygdala (which evaluates information).
Evidence from
neuroscience suggests that emotion activated by way of the thalamo-amygdala
(subcortical) pathway results from rapid, minimal, automatic, evaluative
processing. Emotion activated in this way need not involve the neocortex.
Emotion activated by discrimination of stimulus features, thoughts, or
memories requires that the information be relayed from the thalamus to the
neocortex. Such a circuit is thought to be the neural basis for cognitive
appraisal and evaluation of events.
This two-circuit model
of the neural pathways in emotion activation has several important
theoretical implications. The neurological evidence indicating that emotion
can be activated via the thalamo-amygdala pathway is consistent with the
behavioral evidence that very young infants respond emotionally to pain and
that adults can develop preferences or make affective judgments in
responding to objects before they demonstrate recognition memory for them.
This suggests that in some instances humans may experience emotion before
they reason why.
It might be expected
that in early human development most emotion expressions derive from
automatic, subcortical processing, with minimal cortical involvement. As
cognitive capacities increase with maturation and learning, the neocortex
and the cortico-amygdala pathway become more and more involved. By the time
children acquire language and the capacity for long-term memory, they may
process events in either or both pathways, with the subcortical pathway
specializing in events requiring rapid response and the cortico-amygdala
pathway providing evaluative information necessary for cognitive judgment
and more complex coping strategies.
Physiological
processes.
Many
theorists agree that feedback from physiological activity contributes to
emotion activation. There is disagreement over the kind of feedback that is
important. Some think that it is a visceral feedback--coming from the
activity of the smooth-muscle organs such as the heart and stomach, which
are innervated by the autonomic nervous system. Others believe that it is
feedback from the voluntary, striated muscles, especially of the face, which
are innervated by the somatic nervous system.
Cognitive processes.
Constructivist theorists and researchers have been concerned with the causes
of emotion at the cognitive-experiential level and with the relations
between cognitive processes and emotion. This research has focused on two
topics: the relations between appraisals, or evaluations, and emotions and
the relations between causal attributions and emotions.
Magda B. Arnold was the first contemporary psychologist to propose that
all emotions are a function of one's cognitive appraisal of the stimulus or
situation. She maintained that before a stimulus can elicit emotion it has
to be appraised as good or bad by the perceiver. She described the appraisal
that arouses emotion as concrete, immediate, undeliberate, and not the
result of reflection. Her position was adopted and elaborated by others,
some of whom assumed that cognitive activity, whether in the form of
primitive evaluative perception or symbolic processes, is a necessary
precondition of emotion. Biosocial and constructivist theorists agree that
cognition is an important determinant of emotion and that emotion-cognition
relations merit continued research.
Research by the American
psychologists Phoebe C. Ellsworth and Craig A. Smith on the relations
between appraisals and specific emotions show that people tend to appraise
situations in terms of elements such as pleasantness, anticipated effort,
certainty, responsibility, control, legitimacy, and perceived obstacle.
Researchers have found that each discrete emotion tends to be associated
with a distinctive combination of appraisals. For example, a perceived
obstacle (barrier to a goal) that is due to someone else's responsibility is
associated with anger, a perceived obstacle that is the person's own
responsibility is associated with guilt, and a perceived obstacle
characterized by uncertainty is associated with fear. This study was based
on subjects' retrospective accounts of emotion-eliciting situations, and
therefore the data cannot confirm the view that appraisal causes emotion.
However, the assumption that emotion and appraisal are causally related
seems reasonable.
Another approach to
explaining the causes of emotions is that of
attribution theory. The central idea of this theory, according to the
American psychologist Bernard Weiner, is that the perceptions of the causes
of events can be characterized in three principal ways which affect many
emotional experiences. The perceived causes of events (e.g., success
and failure) are characterized by their locus (internal or external to the
person), stability (a trait of the person or a temporary condition), and
controllability (under the person's control or not).
Research has shown that
different patterns of causal attribution are associated with different
emotions, including anger, guilt, shame, and the more complex phenomena of
pity, pride, gratitude, and hopelessness. Pity is attributed to the
perception of uncontrollable and stable causes--people feel pity for a
person who has an affliction due to a genetic defect or accident.
Anger is attributed to external and controllable events--people feel
anger when an affront or injury is caused by someone's lack of concern or
thoughtlessness.
Guilt is attributed to the perception of internal and controllable
causes--people feel guilt for wrongdoing they could have avoided. Children
aged five to 12 understand the emotional consequences of revealing the
causes of their actions; they know that their teachers might be angry at
their failure if they have not tried hard enough and that teachers might
feel pity for students who lack the ability to learn efficiently and perform
well.
Psychologists
researching cognitive activation have studied the relations between the ways
people cope with stressful encounters and the emotions they experience after
their efforts to resolve the problems. In one study emotions were assessed
by asking subjects to indicate the extent to which they experienced emotions
on four scales: worried/fearful, disgusted/angry, confident, and
pleased/happy. Coping was assessed by subjective ratings on eight scales:
confrontive coping ("stood my ground and fought"), distancing ("didn't let
it get to me"), self-control ("tried to keep my feelings to myself"),
seeking social support ("talked to someone"), accepting responsibility
("criticized myself"), escape-avoidance ("wished the situation would go
away"), planful problem solving ("changed or grew as a person"), and
positive reappraisal. Four of these ways of coping were associated with the
quality of emotion that followed the effort to cope. Planful problem solving
and positive reappraisal tended to increase happiness and confidence and to
decrease disgust and anger. Obversely, the subjects reported that
confrontation and distancing techniques increased their disgust and anger
and decreased their happiness and confidence. Because these data were
retrospective, there can be no firm conclusion that a particular way of
coping causes a particular emotion experience. Nevertheless, the observed
relations among ways of coping and subsequent emotion experiences are
reasonable and in line with theoretical expectations.
The controversy as to
whether some cognitive process is a necessary antecedent of emotion may
hinge on the definition of terms, particularly the definition of cognition.
If cognition is defined so broadly that it includes all levels or types of
information processing, then cognition may confidently be said to precede
emotion activation. If those mental processes that do not involve mental
representation based on learning or experience are excluded from the concept
of cognition, then cognition so defined does not necessarily precede the
three-week-old infant's smile to the high-pitched human voice, the
two-month-old's anger expression to pain, or the formation of the affective
preferences (likes or dislikes) in adults.
Multimodal theory.
Evidence suggests that a satisfactory model of emotion activation must be
multimodal. Emotions can, as indicated above, be activated by such
precognitive processes as physiological states, motor mimicry (imitation of
another's movements), and sensory processes and by numerous cognitive
processes, including comparison, matching, appraisal, categorization,
imagery, memory, attribution, and anticipation. Further, all emotion
activation processes are influenced by a variety of internal and external
factors.
THE STRUCTURE OF
EMOTIONS
In the
discussion of the structure of emotions it is not always possible to ignore
the function of emotions, which is discussed in the following section. The
separation, however, is conducive to sorting out the complex field of
emotions.
Both biosocial and
constructivist theories of emotions acknowledge that an emotion is a complex
phenomenon. They generally agree that an emotion includes physiological
functions, expressive behaviour, and subjective experience and that each of
these components is based on activity in the brain and nervous system. As
noted above, some theorists, particularly those of the constructivist
persuasion, hold that an emotion also involves cognition, an appraisal or
cognitive-evaluative process that triggers the emotion and determines or
contributes to the subjective experience of the emotion.
The physiological
component.
The
physiological component of emotion has been a lively topic of research since
Cannon challenged the James-Lange theory by showing that feedback from the
viscera has little effect on emotional expression in animals. Cannon's
studies and criticisms were regarded by many as too narrow, failing to,
among other things, consider the possible role of feedback from striated
muscle systems of the face and body.
Role of the nervous system.
Since
the popularization of the James-Lange theory of emotion, the physiological
component of emotion has been traditionally identified as activity in the
autonomic nervous system and the visceral organs (e.g., the heart and
lungs) that it innervates. However, some contemporary theorists hold that
the neural basis of emotions resides in the
central nervous system and that the autonomic nervous system is
recruited by emotion to fulfill certain functions related to sustaining and
regulating emotion experience and emotion-related behaviour. Several
findings from neuroscience support this idea. Neuroanatomical studies have
shown that the central nervous system structures involved in emotion
activation can exert direct influences on the autonomic nervous system. For
example, efferents from the amygdala to the hypothalamus may influence
activity in the autonomic nervous system that is involved in defensive
reactions. Further, there are connections between pathways innervating
facial expression and the autonomic nervous system. Studies have shown that
patterns of activity in this system vary with the type of emotion being
expressed.
Roles of the brain
hemispheres.
There
is some evidence that the two hemispheres of the
brain are related differently to emotion processes. Early evidence
suggested that the right (or dominant) hemisphere may be more adept than the
left at discriminating among emotional expressions. Later research using
electroencephalography elaborated this initial conclusion, suggesting that
the right hemisphere may be more involved in processing negative emotions
and the left hemisphere more involved in processing positive emotions.
The expressive
component.
The
expressive component of emotion includes facial, vocal, postural, and
gestural activity. Expressive behaviour is mediated by phylogenetically old
structures of the brain, which is consistent with the notion that they
served survival functions in the course of evolution.
Involvement of brain
structures.
Emotion expressions involve limbic forebrain structures and aspects of the
peripheral nervous system. The facial and trigeminal nerves and receptors in
facial muscles and skin are required in expressing emotion and in
facilitating sensory feedback from expressive movements.
Early studies of the
neural basis of emotion expression showed that aggressive behaviour can be
elicited from a cat after its neocortex has been removed and suggested that
the hypothalamus is a critical subcortical structure mediating aggression.
Later research indicated that, rather than the hypothalamus, the central
gray region of the midbrain and the substantia nigra may be the key
structures mediating aggressive behaviour in animals.
Neural pathways of facial
expression.
Of the
various types of expressive behaviour, facial expression has received the
most attention. In human beings and in many nonhuman primates, patterns of
facial movements constitute the chief means of displaying emotion-specific
signals. Whereas research has provided much information on the neural basis
of emotional behaviours (e.g., aggression) in animals, little is
known about the brain structures that control facial expression.
The peripheral pathways
of facial emotion expression consist of the seventh and fifth cranial
nerves. The seventh, or
facial, nerve is the efferent (outward) pathway; it conveys motor
messages from the brain to facial muscles. The fifth, or
trigeminal, nerve is the afferent (inward) pathway that provides sensory
data from movements of facial muscles and skin. According to some theorists,
it is the trigeminal nerve that transmits the facial feedback which
contributes to the activation and regulation of emotion experience. The
impulses for this sensory feedback originate when movement stimulates the
mechanoreceptors in facial skin. The skin is richly supplied with such
receptors, and the many branches of the trigeminal nerve detect and convey
the sensory impulses to the brain.
The innateness and
universality of emotion expressions.
More
than a century ago Darwin's observations and correspondence with friends
living in different parts of the world led him to conclude that certain
emotion expressions are innate and universal, part of the basic structure of
emotions. Contemporary cross-cultural and developmental research has given
strong support to Darwin's conclusion, showing that people in literate and
preliterate cultures have a common understanding of the expressions of joy,
surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, and fear. Other studies have
suggested that the expressions of interest and shyness and the feelings of
shame and guilt may also be innate and universal.
The experiential
component.
There
is general agreement that various stimuli and neural processes leading to an
emotion result not only in physiological reactions and expressive behaviour
but also in subjective experience. Some biosocial theorists restrict the
definition of an emotion experience to a feeling state and argue that it can
be activated independently of cognition. Constructivist theorists view the
experiential component of emotion as having a cognitive aspect. The issue
regarding the relation between emotion feeling states and cognition remains
unresolved, but it is widely agreed that emotion feeling states and
cognitive processes are typically highly interactive.
Emotion experiences, the
actual feelings of joy, sadness, anger, shame, fear, and the like, do not
lend themselves to objective measurement. All research on emotion experience
ultimately depends on self-reports, which are imprecise. There are few
instances where feelings and words are perfectly matched. Yet, most students
of emotions, whether philosopher or neuroscientist, ultimately want to
explain emotion experience.
The physiological structure
of emotion experience.
Little
is known about the neural basis of emotion experience. Critical reviews have
shown that there is little evidence to support the position that activity in
the autonomic nervous system provides the physiological basis for emotion
experience. However, there is some evidence to support the hypothesis that
sensory feedback from facial expression contributes to emotion experience.
Cognitive models of
emotion experience have influenced conceptions of the underlying neural
processes. Explanations of emotions in terms of appraisal and attributional
processes led some researchers to suggest that conscious experiences of
emotions derive from the cognitive processes that underlie
language. This led to the hypothesis that emotion experiences involve
interactions between limbic forebrain areas and the areas of the neocortex
that mediate language and language-based cognitive systems. However, this
view does not take into account the possibility that emotions occur in
preverbal infants and may be mediated in adults by unconscious or
nonlinguistic mental processes, such as imagery.
Action tendencies in emotion
experiences.
Both
constructivist and biosocial theorists have emphasized that emotions include
action tendencies. The experience, or feeling, of a given emotion generates
a tendency to act in a certain way. For example, in anger the tendency is to
attack and in fear to flee. Whether a person actually attacks in anger or
flees in fear depends on the individual's methods of emotion regulation and
the circumstances.
Source :
http://universityofzafarana.freeservers.com/Directorio/Marraquex/bibliografia/brit_emo.htm
|
THE FUNCTIONS OF
EMOTIONS |
Top |
In academic discussions of the
functions of emotions the focus is usually on the phenomenological,
or experiential, aspect of emotions. For purposes of this
discussion, however, the functions of emotions are examined in terms
of the three structural components--physiological, expressive, and
experiential.
Physiological functions.
The
functions of physiological activity that is mediated by the autonomic
nervous system and that accompanies states of emotion can be considered as
part of the individual's effort to adapt and cope, but, of course,
physiological as well as cognitive reactions in extreme emotion usually
require regulation (expressed through cognitive processes and expressive
behaviour) in order for coping activities to be effective. For example,
adaptation to situations that elicit a less extreme emotion such as interest
require a quite different physiological and behavioral activity than do
situations that elicit intense anger or fear. The heart-rate deceleration
and quieting of internal organs that occur in interest facilitate the intake
and processing of information, whereas heart-rate acceleration in intense
anger and fear prepares the individual to cope by more active means, whether
through shouting, physical actions, or various combinations of the two.
Functions of emotion
expressions.
Emotion expressions have three major functions: they contribute to the
activation and regulation of emotion experiences; they communicate something
about internal states and intentions to others; and they activate emotions
in others, a process that can help account for empathy and altruistic
behaviour.
Role of expressions in
emotion experiences.
In
The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals Darwin clearly
revealed his belief that even voluntary emotion expression evoked emotion
feeling. He wrote: "Even the simulation [expression] of an emotion tends to
arouse it in our minds." Thus, Darwin's idea suggested that facial feedback
(sensations created by the movements of expressive behaviour) activate, or
contribute to the activation of, emotion feelings. A number of experiments
have provided substantial evidence that intentional management of facial
expression contributes to the regulation (and perhaps activation) of emotion
experiences. Most evidence is related not to specific emotion feelings but
to the broad classes of positive and negative states of emotion. There is,
therefore, some scientific support for the old advice to "smile when you
feel blue" and "whistle a happy tune when you're afraid."
Darwin was even more
persuasive when speaking specifically of the regulation of emotion
experience by self-initiated expressive behaviour. He wrote:
The free expression by
outward signs of an emotion intensifies it. On the other hand, the
repression, as far as this is possible, of all outward signs softens our
emotions.
Experiments by more contemporary researchers on motivated, self-initiated
expressive behaviours have shown that, if people can control their facial
expression during moments of pain, there will be less arousal of the
autonomic nervous system and a diminution of the pain experience.
Role of expressions in
communicating internal states.
The
social communication function of emotion expressions is most evident in
infancy. Long before infants have command of language or are capable of
reasoning, they can send a wide variety of messages through their facial
expressions. Virtually all the muscles necessary for facial expression of
basic emotions are present before birth. Through the use of an objective,
anatomically based system for coding the separate facial muscle movements,
it has been found that the ability to smile and to facially express pain,
interest, and disgust are present at birth; the social smile can be
expressed by three or four weeks; sadness and anger by about two months; and
fear by six or seven months. Informal observations suggest that expressions
indicative of shyness appear by about four months and expressions of guilt
by about two years.
The expressive
behaviours are infants' primary means of signaling their internal states and
of becoming engaged in the family and larger human community. Emotion
expressions help form the foundation for social relationships and social
development. They also provide stimulation that appears to be necessary for
physical and mental health.
Role of expressions in
motivating response.
One-
and three-day-old infants cry in response to other infants' cries but not to
a computer-generated sound that simulates crying. Infants as young as two or
three months of age respond differently to different expressions by the
mother. The information an infant obtains from the mother's facial
expressions mediates or regulates a variety of infant behaviours. For
example, most infants cross a modified "visual cliff" (an apparatus that was
originally used in depth perception study, consisting of a glass floor that
gives the illusion of a drop-off) if their mother stands on the opposite
side and smiles, but none cross if she expresses fear.
Facial expressions,
particularly of sadness, may facilitate empathy and altruistic behaviour.
Darwin thought facial expressions evoked empathy and concluded that
expression-induced empathy was inborn. Research has shown that, when mothers
display sadness expressions, their infants also demonstrate more sadness
expressions and decrease their exploratory play. Infants under two years of
age respond to their mother's real or simulated expressions of sadness or
distress by making efforts to show sympathy and provide help.
Source :
http://universityofzafarana.freeservers.com/Directorio/Marraquex/bibliografia/brit_emo.htm
|
|
EMOTIONS, TEMPERAMENT, AND PERSONALITY |
Top |
The emotions are central to the issues of modern
times, but perhaps they have been critical to the issues of every era.
Poets, prophets, and philosophers of all ages have recognized the
significance of emotions in individual life and human affairs, and the
meaning of a specific emotion, at least in the context of verbal
expression, seems to be timeless. Although art, literature, and
philosophy have contributed to the understanding of emotion
experiences throughout the ages, modern science has provided a
substantial increase in the knowledge of the neurophysiological basis
of emotions and their structure and functions.
Research in
neuroscience and developmental psychology suggests that emotions can
be activated automatically and unconsciously in subcortical
pathways. This suggests that humans often experience emotions
without reasoning why. Such precognitive information processing may
be continuous, and the resulting emotion states may influence the
many perceptual-cognitive and behavioral processes (such as
perceiving, thinking, judging, remembering, imagining, and coping)
that activate emotions through pathways involving the neocortex.
The two
recognized types of emotion activation have important implications
for the role of emotions in cognition and action. Subcortical,
automatic information processing may provide the primitive data for
immediate emotional response, whereas higher-order cognitive
information processing involving the neocortex yields the
evaluations and attributions necessary for the appropriate emotions
and coping strategy in a complex situation.
Biosocial and
constructivist theories agree that perception, thought, imagery, and
memory are important causes of emotions. They also agree that once
emotion is activated, emotion and cognition influence each other.
How people feel affects what they perceive, think, and do, and vice
versa.
Emotions have
physiological, expressive, and experiential components, and each
component can be studied in terms of its structure and functions.
The physiological component influences the intensity and duration of
felt emotion, expressions serve communicative and sociomotivational
functions, and emotion experiences (feeling states) influence
cognition and action.
Research has
shown that certain emotion expressions are innate and universal and
have significant functions in infant development and in
infant-parent relations and that there are stable individual
differences in emotion expressiveness. Emotion states influence what
people perceive, learn, and remember, and they are involved in the
development of empathic, altruistic, and moral behaviour and in
basic personality traits.
Most theorists agree that emotion
thresholds and emotion responsiveness are part of the infrastructure
of
temperament and
personality. There has, however, been little empirical research
on the relations among measures of emotions, dimensions of
temperament, and personality traits.
Emotions and
temperament.
Most theories of temperament define at least one
dimension of temperament in terms of emotion. Two theories maintain
that negative emotions form the core of one of the basic and stable
dimensions of temperament. Another suggests that each of the
dimensions of temperament is rooted in a particular discrete emotion
and that these dimensions form the emotional substrate of
personality characteristics. For example, proneness to anger would
influence the development of aggressiveness, and the emotion of
interest would account for the temperament trait of persistence.
Emotions and
personality.
A number of major personality theories, such as
theories of temperament, identify dimensions or traits of
personality in terms of emotions. For example, the German-born
British psychologist Hans J. Eysenck has proposed three fundamental
dimensions of personality: extroversion-introversion, neuroticism,
and psychoticism. Extroversion-introversion includes the trait of
sociability, which can also be related to emotion (e.g.,
interest, as expressed toward people, versus shyness). Neuroticism
includes emotionality defined, as in temperament theory, as
nonspecific negative emotional responsiveness. Psychoticism may
represent emotions gone awry or the absence of emotions appropriate
to the circumstances.
Several studies
have shown that measures of positive emotionality and negative
emotionality are independent, are not inversely related, and have
stability over time. Further, it has been shown that positive and
negative emotionality have different relations with symptoms of
psychological disorders. For example, negative emotionality
correlates positively with panic attack, panic-associated symptoms
and obsessive-compulsive symptoms; that is, the higher the degree of
negative emotion, the more likely that the attack or symptoms will
occur. Conversely, positive emotionality correlates negatively with
these phenomena. Although several of the same negative emotions
characterize both the anxiety and depressive disorders, a lack of
positive emotion experiences is more characteristic of depression
than of anxiety.
Continuity of emotion expressiveness.
Some studies have shown that specific emotions,
identified in terms of expressive behaviour and physiological
functions, have stability. One study showed that a child's
expression of positive and negative emotion was consistent during
the first two years of life. Other studies have shown stability of
wariness or fear responses, indicating that a child who is fearful
at one age is likely to be fearful in comparable situations at a
later age. In a study of infants' responses to the pain of DTP
inoculation, it was found that the child's anger expression indexes
at ages two, four, and six months accurately predicted his or her
anger expression in the inoculations at 19 months of age. Similar
results were obtained for the sadness expression.
A study of
mother-infant interaction and separation found that infants'
expression at three to six months of age were accurate predictors of
infant emotion expressive patterns at nine to 12 months of age.
Emotion expression patterns have also shown continuity from 13 to 18
months of age during brief mother-infant separation.
Source :
http://universityofzafarana.freeservers.com/Directorio/Marraquex/bibliografia/brit_emo.htm
|
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE |
Top |
EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE: ISSUES AND COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Robert J. Emmerling, Psy.D
TalentSmart, Inc.
And
Daniel Goleman, Ph.D.Consortium for Research on Emotional
Intelligence in Organizations
October, 2003
In
this article we seek to raise issues and air questions that have
arisen along with the growing interest in emotional intelligence. We
hope to catalyze a dialogue among all those with serious interests
in the area, to surface hidden assumptions, correct mistaken
impressions, and survey a range of opinions. Such open dialogue, we
believe, can pay off to the degree it strengthens the research and
thinking that are the foundations of the field—both in theory and in
applications.
The
influence of emotional intelligence on popular culture and the
academic community has been rapid and widespread. While this has
stimulated a surprising number or research initiatives across a wide
range of domains within psychology, the swiftness with which the
concept of emotional intelligence has caught on perhaps inevitably
created a gap between what we know and what we need to know.
Understandably, this has led to a great deal of controversy and
debate among researchers and practitioners eager to understand and
apply the principles associated with emotional intelligence. Such
debate, of course, is not confined to emotional intelligence, but is
an inherent part of the process of theory development and scientific
discovery in any field.
Research and theory on emotions has waxed and waned over the history
of psychology. The behavior revolution inspired by B. F. Skinner and
the subsequent cognitive revolution saw interest in emotion
seriously undermined. However, beginning in the 1980s and
accelerating into the present, interest in emotions has enjoyed a
robust resurgence across a wide range of subdisciplines within
psychology, neuroscience, and the health sciences—especially the
renewed focus on positive psychology, well-being, and mind/body
medicine. While such research continues to expand our knowledge of
emotions, fundamental questions remain regarding emotional
intelligence.
We
seek to raise important questions and issues for the field. The
questions we address include: What is emotional intelligence (EI)?
How is it different from other established constructs within
psychology? Is it possible to develop EI? Is EI a better predictor
of work performance than traditional measures of intelligence—or,
more precisely, which kinds of work performance does EI predict most
strongly? Should EI be measured at all? Finally, what is the
relationship between ethics and EI?
All
of these are legitimate questions, and each has been raised by many
voices in the field. In this article we seek to add to the ongoing
dialogue by clarifying our own position, and helping to
differentiate and sharpen the issues. We also seek to address some
common claims about emotional intelligence that may foster
consequential, even unfortunate misunderstandings.
As
Kuhn (1970) notes, scientists' efforts to deal with data in a
systematic fashion, guided by deeply held theories, lead to the
formation of distinct research paradigms. Each of these paradigms
has its own unique history, methods, and assumptions for dealing
with its focal topic, and, in this sense, the emotional intelligence
paradigm is no different than other paradigms within psychology.
According to Kuhn (1970), such a scientific paradigm becomes "an
object for further articulation and specification under new and more
stringent conditions.” Once models and paradigms have been
articulated, the signs of scientific vigor include, “the
proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try
anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to
philosophy and to debate over fundamentals” (p.91). The current
debates and vigorous research efforts in the area of emotional
intelligence suggests just this state of affairs; by Kuhn's
criteria, the emotional intelligence paradigm would seem to have
reached a state of scientific maturity (Goleman, 2001). As paradigms
mature, specific theories within the paradigm begin to emerge and
differentiate, as has occurred since the first formal formulation of
an emotional intelligence theory by Peter Salovey and John Mayer in
1990. All these new variations on their theme—like the original
theory—must be held to Karl Popper's test: A new theory can be
justified if it has the potential to explain things that other
theories cannot, or if it has the potential to explain things better
than other competing theories. Any new theory must lead to testable
hypotheses which will allow it to be compared with other theories,
with the goal of determining whether the theory would constitute a
scientific advance should it survive in light of research aimed at
testing its specific hypotheses (Popper, 1959). Moreover, if such a
theory is able to withstand rigorous tests of its validity, the
question then becomes one of application. Can such a theory be
applied without giving rise to inconsistencies? Will such a theory
help us to achieve some useful purpose? Is such a theory really
needed at all? (Popper, 1959). If a theory can pass these crucial
tests, then the theory can be compared with other competing theories
to see if the current theory represents a replacement or extension
of theories currently in use.
Predictive Validity of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace
Perhaps central to the current interest in emotional intelligence is
its potential utility in predicting a range of criterion across
disparate populations. As with claims associated with traditional
intelligence, the predictive validity of emotional intelligence will
likely vary widely depending on the context, criterion of interest,
and specific theory used. Traditional measures of intelligence,
although providing some degree of predictive validity, have not been
able to account for a large portion of the variance in work
performance and career success. As Goleman (1998, p. 19) states,
“When IQ test scores are correlated with how well people perform in
their careers the highest estimate of how much difference IQ
accounts for is about 25 percent (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1981). A careful analysis, though, suggests a more accurate
figure may be no higher than 10 percent and perhaps as low as 4
percent” (Sternberg, 1997). These are still significant
correlations, even at the low end of the estimates, and there is no
doubt that IQ will remain a significant predictor of work “success”,
especially in predicting which job, profession, or career path a
person can follow. In a recent meta-analysis examining the
correlation and predictive validity of EI when compared to IQ or
general mental ability, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (in press) found IQ
to be a better predictor of work and academic performance than EI.
However, when it comes to the question of whether a person will
become a “star performer” (in the top ten percent, however such
performance is appropriately assessed) within that role, or be an
outstanding leader, IQ may be a less powerful predictor than
emotional intelligence (Goleman 1998, 2001, 2002). While social
scientists are mainly interested in the main predictive relationship
between IQ and work success, practitioners and those who must make
decisions on hiring and promotion within organizations are
understandably far more interested in assessing capabilities related
to outstanding performance and leadership. There has been virtually
no quantitative social science research on top leaders, however, in
part because of the taboo noted by the anthropologist Laura Nader
(1996) against “studying up” the power structure—CEOs and others who
hold power are resistant to allowing themselves to be assessed by
objective measures, including IQ tests. Qualitative research,
however, suggests that IQ measures fail to account for large
portions of the variance related to performance and career success,
especially among top managers and senior leaders (Fernandez-Araoz,
2001). There has, however, been a much larger body of research on
top performers (e.g. Kelly, 1998; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), which
suggests that IQ alone does not predict in this domain as well as
competencies that integrate cognitive, emotional and social
abilities.
However, the issue of separating abilities related to cognitive
intelligence from abilities, traits, and competencies related to
emotional intelligence remains a complex one; all definitions of
emotional intelligence represent a combination of cognitive and
emotional abilities (Cherniss, 2001). This reflects the growing
understanding in neuroscience that cognition and emotions are
interwoven in mental life (through thick connections between the
emotional centers and the neocortex) rather than discretely
independent, especially in complex decision-making, self-awareness,
affective self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and interpersonal
functioning (Davidson, 2001); all these are aspects of emotional
intelligence. IQ, however, appears to represent a more “pure” case
from the neuroscience perspective, since the brain regions it draws
on are localized in the neocortex, and can function relatively well
on the items in IQ tests even when lesions isolate these structures
from emotional centers (Damasio, 1994).
The
failure of IQ to predict a large portion of the variance in
performance among managers may be attributable to range restriction
on the variable of IQ among managers and senior executives. To
assume a position of leadership in today's workplace often requires
that an individual demonstrate at least average, and more often
above average intelligence; leadership requires a high level of
cognitive ability in order to process the complexity of information
leaders face daily. The completion of undergraduate and graduate
programs as well as successfully passing testing and credentialing
procedures typically serves to ensure that those able to pass such
hurdles are of above average intelligence. This renders given levels
of IQ a “threshold” competence, a minimal capability that all who
are within a given job pool must have in order to get and keep their
job. For example, physicians, CPAs and CEOs may all need an IQ at
least one standard deviation above the mean in order to hold their
job . However, simply having an IQ in that superior range does not
in itself guarantee that they will be superior doctors, accountants,
or leaders (McClelland, 1973; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). IQ, then,
suffers from range restriction in many applied organizational
settings, and thus is even more limited in its ability to predict
performance and career success within a given vocation. While IQ may
account for a more substantial amount of the variance in performance
in entry-level positions, even in this context it rarely acts to
reliably distinguish average and star performers. Even in
educational settings the use of traditional testing procedures has
often left much of the variance in educational outcomes unexplained.
This combined with the adverse impact that traditional testing
procedures may have on minority groups has motivated interest in
developing alternative methods of assessment (Steele, 1997).
While the assessment of constructs within the emotional intelligence
paradigm have shown significant utility and predictive validity in
applied settings (e.g. Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993),
claims of the relative importance of emotional intelligence compared
to traditional forms of intelligence needs further empirical
investigation to better determine the relative contribution of each
in the prediction of specific criterion (Goleman, 2000). While IQ
should remain an important predictor of the types of vocations a
given individual can assume, once within that vocation the
predictive validity of IQ would seem to diminish significantly. The
notion of IQ as a threshold competence is an important distinction
and one that has often been overlooked or down played by many
theorists as well as in the popular media. The excitement generated
in the popular media has often left the impression that high
emotional intelligence might somehow compensate for a low IQ and
allow those with below average IQ, but high emotional intelligence,
to thrive in spite of below average intelligence – in essence giving
the false impression that IQ matters little. While we agree that IQ
is clearly an important construct, we join other theorists who argue
that by expanding our definition of intelligence we obtain a more
realistic and valid assessment of the factors that lead to personal
effectiveness and adaptation (see Sternberg, 1997, 2002). To the
degree that popular and scientific interest in emotional
intelligence has begun to challenge long held assumptions of what
leads to success in life, the emotional intelligence paradigm, and
those working in it, have helped to bring a more balanced view of
the role of cognition and emotion in determining life outcomes.
While research on emotional intelligence has progressed
significantly since its inception, more research will be needed to
further validate claims of the relative importance that traditional
intelligence and emotional intelligence hold to the prediction of
specific criterion. Longitudinal research looking at the relative
contribution of IQ and specific theoretical constructs within the
emotional intelligence paradigm would help better clarify the
relative importance of each as it relates to specific criterion,
such as work performance over an individual's career. Such direct
comparisons between IQ and emotional intelligence would be a welcome
addition to the growing literature.
The
“Problem” of Multiple Theories of Emotional Intelligence
People are often surprised to find that within the emotional
intelligence paradigm there exists not one, but several theories
(e.g. Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995:1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) .
Each theory has been put forward in an attempt to better understand
and explain the skills, traits, and abilities associated with social
and emotional intelligence. While some might argue that the goal of
research should be to identify and define a singular theoretical
framework to be labeled as the “correct” version of emotional
intelligence, another approach would be to acknowledge that having
multiple theories can often serve to elucidate additional aspects of
complex psychological constructs. For example, research looking at
the correlation between the MEIS (a measure of Mayer and Salovey's
model of emotional intelligence), and the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) (a
measure of Reuven Bar-On's model of emotional intelligence) has
shown the two measures are not highly correlated with one another,
suggesting that these two measures are tapping different aspects of
the construct (however, each major theory differs somewhat in its
version of the basic definition of EI). Moreover, research on the
MEIS (and its successor the MSCEIT v2.0) have shown it to be
correlated with traditional measures of intelligence (Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, in press). This moderate correlation with IQ is
consistent with the author's view that all forms of intelligence
should show some degree of correlation to be properly classified as
an intelligence. The low to moderate correlations between IQ,
specifically verbal intelligence, and emotional intelligence
suggests that the relationship between these two constructs is
relatively orthogonal in nature. While less correlated with
traditional intelligence, the Bar-On EQ-i, and other trait-based
theories of emotional intelligence, show a higher degree of overlap
with traditional measures of personality (Bar-On, 1997; Saklofske,
Austin, & Minski, 2003; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper,
Golden, & Dorheim, 1998). While the correlations between these
trait-based emotional intelligence measures and traditional measures
of personality, such as measures that assess the Big Five, are
moderate to high, researchers have often been able to demonstrate
the discriminant validity of trait-based approaches to emotional
intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Saklofke, Austin, &
Minski, 2003; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, &
Dorhneim, 1998; Van Der Zee, Thijs, Schakel, 2002; Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, in press; Wong & Law, 2002). While correlations with
traditional psychological constructs are to be expected, more recent
research on the incremental validity of emotional intelligence when
IQ and personality are controlled for has shown that emotional
intelligence is indeed a unique construct that accounts for unique
variance (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Palmer, Gardner, & Stough,
2003; Saklofke, Austin, & Minski, 2002; Schutte, Malouff, Hall,
Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dorhneim, 1998; Van Der Zee, Thijs,
Schakel, 2002; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, in press). Given the relative
youth of the emotional intelligence construct, scientific evidence
continues to mount that suggests the construct represents a
constellation of traits and abilities that are not fully accounted
for by cognitive intelligence and traditional measures of
personality.
However, the evidence here remains murky. For one, each of the
studies that speak to the issue have used different measures of EI,
which are in turn based on different definitions of the construct.
For instance, Schutte et al. (1998) use a measure based on the Mayer
and Salovey definition which, we would expect, should overlap little
with personality. The issue of personality overlap pertains mainly
to the Bar-On and Goleman models of EI. Another problem with many of
these studies is that they look at the relationship between specific
aspects of EI and specific personality traits. For instance, there
are small to moderately high correlations between Extraversion (from
the Big Five) and each of the four clusters as assessed on the ECI (Sala,
2002). What is needed to clarify the question of overlap is a study
that combines personality traits and then examines incremental
validity for EI. While Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (in press) did this,
they combine all the measures of EI; what is needed, though, is an
analysis that does this separately for the ECI and the EQ-i.
We
should remember, too, that the existence of several theoretical
viewpoints within the emotional intelligence paradigm does not
indicate a weakness, but rather the robustness of the field. This
kind of alternative theorizing, of course, is not unique to the
study of emotional intelligence and should not be viewed as
undermining the validity and utility of this emerging field. In
describing the current status of the overall field of intelligence,
Sternberg, Lautrey, and Lubart (2002) comment, “few fields seem to
have lenses with so many colors.” (p.3). Yet the field of
traditional intelligence (IQ) has not seriously been threatened or
discredited for having multiple theories; continuing debate and
research on traditional intelligence has significantly increased our
knowledge and practical applications of intelligence assessment to a
wide range of populations and issues. Moreover, within the field of
intelligence theory, this debate has continued for almost 100 years,
and promises to continue well into the foreseeable future. While
still in its infancy, the field of emotional intelligence would seem
to be following a similar trajectory.
While several theories associated with the emotional intelligence
paradigm currently exist, the three that have generated the most
interest in terms of research and application are the theories of
Mayer and Salovey (1997), Bar-On (1988; 2000a) and Goleman (1998b;
2002). While all of these theorists have been associated with the
emotional intelligence paradigm, a closer reading of their writing
over time will reveal a significant divergence in the specific
language they use to label their theories and constructs. While each
theory represents a unique set of constructs that represents the
theoretical orientation and context in which each of these authors
have decided to frame their theory, all share a common desire to
understand and measure the abilities and traits related to
recognizing and regulating emotions in ourselves and others (Goleman,
2001). As Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, (2000) point out, although
definitions within the field of emotional intelligence vary, they
tend to be complementary rather than contradictory. All theories
within the emotional intelligence paradigm seek to understand how
individuals perceive, understand, utilize and manage emotions in an
effort to predict and foster personal effectiveness. An awareness of
the origins and motivations of each of these theories provides
additional insight into why the specific constructs, and methods
used to measure them, vary among the major theories.
The first of the three major theories to
emerge was that of Bar-On (1988). In his doctoral dissertation he
coined the term
emotional quotient
(EQ), as an analogue to intelligence
quotient (IQ). The timing of the publication of his dissertation in
the late 1980s was consistent with an increasing interest in the
role of emotion in social functioning and well-being, but before
interest in emotional intelligence enjoyed the widespread interest
and popularity that it does today. Bar-On (2000a) currently defines
his model in terms of an array of traits and abilities related to
emotional and social knowledge that influence our overall ability to
effectively cope with environmental demands, as such, it can be
viewed as a model of psychological well-being and adaptation. This
model includes (1) the ability to be aware of, to understand, and to
express oneself; (2) the ability to be aware of, to understand and
relate to others; (3) the ability to deal with strong emotions and
control one's impulses; and (4) the ability to adapt to change and
to solve problems of a personal or social nature. The five main
domains in this model are
intrapersonal
skills
,
interpersonal
skills
,
adaptability
,
stress management
, and
general mood
(Bar-On, 1997b). The EQ-i, which Bar-On
constructed to measure the model, is a self-report measure that
specifically measures emotionally and socially competent behavior
that estimates an individual's emotional and social intelligence, as
opposed to traditional personality traits or cognitive capacity
(Bar-On, 2000). The use of a self-report measure to assess
individuals on this model is consistent with established practice
within personality psychology, where self-report measures represent
the dominant, though certainly not the only, method of assessment.
However, it must be noted that since its initial publication the
Bar-On EQ-i has also been published as a 360-degree measure. While
correlations between the EQ-i and subscales of other established
measures of personality, especially ones that are thought to tap
closely related constructs, have been moderate to high, overall the
EQ-i seems to provide a valid and reliable estimate of an
individual's ability to effectively cope with the pressures and
demands of daily life, as conceptualized by Bar-On (Bar-On, 2000a).
Emotional intelligence as formulated in
the theory of Mayer & Salovey (1997) has been framed within a model
of intelligence. The motivation to develop a theory of emotional
intelligence, and instruments to measure it, came from a realization
that traditional measures of intelligence failed to measure
individual differences in the ability to perceive, process, and
effectively manage emotions and emotional information. The use of
this frame is significant, as it defines emotional intelligence more
specifically as the
ability
to perceive emotions, to access and
generate emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and
emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions to
promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Like other intelligences, emotional intelligence is defined by Mayer
and Salovey as a group of mental abilities, and is best measured
using a testing situation that is performance or ability based. This
focus on objective, performance-based assessment is similar in
spirit to the methods used to measure traditional intelligence (IQ).
For example, to measure spatial reasoning ability, traditionally
seen as a type of cognitive intelligence, it makes sense to present
an individual with a set of spatial reasoning tasks of varying
difficulty in order to gauge their ability on this type of
intelligence. Performance-based measures of emotional intelligence
take a similar approach. For example, if you want insight into an
individual's ability to perceive emotions in others, it makes sense
to present them a variety of visual images, such as faces, and ask
them to identity the emotion(s) present. The most current measure of
the Mayer & Salovey model, the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, Emotional
Intelligence Test v.2.0 (MSCEIT v2.0), makes use of this approach
and thus yields scores that are based on an individual's performance
on a set of items designed to measure the four branch model of
emotional intelligence. As is evident within traditional theories
and methods of measuring cognitive intelligence, the measure is
viewed as applicable to a wide range of settings, for example
clinical assessment, education, and the workplace. This potential
for application across diverse settings and populations is a
consistent theme within the general intelligence literature as well.
The
framing of emotional intelligence within the larger body of theory
and research on intelligence has other implications as well. As
Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) point out, to qualify as an actual
intelligence several criteria must be met. First, any intelligence
must reflect actual mental performance rather than preferred
behavior patterns, self-esteem, or other constructs more
appropriately labeled traits. Second, the proposed intelligence
should describe a set of related abilities that can be shown as
conceptually distinct from established intelligences; and third, an
intelligence should develop with age. To date, the ability-based
model has provided evidence to support each of these demands
required to be correctly labeled an intelligence (Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). As
Sternberg (2002) recently commented, “An impressive aspect of this
work is Salovey, Mayer, and their colleagues' program of careful
validation to assess the construct validity of their theory and
measures. In a relatively short amount of time, they have developed
measures and provided good evidence of both convergent and
discriminant validity.” (p.3)
The most recent addition to theory within
the emotional intelligence paradigm is the framework of emotional
intelligence put forward by Goleman (1998b) in his book
Working with
Emotional Intelligence,
and clarified in a later article (Goleman, 2001). This theory
represents a framework of emotional intelligence that reflects how
an individual's potential for mastering the skills of
Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship
Management translates into success in the workplace (Goleman, 2001).
Goleman's model of emotional intelligence, then, offers these four
major domains. He then postulates that each of these domains becomes
the foundation for learned abilities, or competencies, that depend
on underlying strength in the relevant EI domain. The EI domain of
Self-Awareness, for example, provides the underlying basis for the
learned competency of “Accurate Self-Assessment” of strengths and
limitations pertaining to a role such as leadership. The competency
level of this framework is based on a content analysis of
capabilities that have been identified through internal research on
work performance in several hundred companies and organizations
worldwide. Goleman defines an emotional ‘competence' as “a learned
capability based on emotional intelligence that results in
outstanding performance at work” (Goleman, 1998b). That such
competencies are learned is a critical distinction. Where
emotional
intelligence
, as defined by Mayer & Salovey,
represents our potential for achieving mastery of specific abilities
in this domain, the emotional competencies themselves represent the
degree to which an individual has mastered specific, skills and
abilities that build on EI and allow them greater effectiveness in
the workplace (Goleman, 2001). In this context, emotional
intelligence might predict the ease by which a given individual will
be able master the specific skills and abilities of a given
emotional competence.
Grounding his theory specifically within
the context of work performance separates Goleman's model from those
of Bar-On, and Mayer and Salovey. Where the latter frame their
theories as general theories of social and emotional intelligence
and emotional intelligence respectively, Goleman's theory is
specific to the domain of work performance. According to the test
manuals of both the MSCEIT v2.0 (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002b)
and the Bar-On EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), these measures are applicable to
a wider range of settings such as clinical assessment, educational
settings, in addition to the workplace. Where Bar-On seeks to
develop a general measure of social and emotional intelligence
predictive of emotional well-being and adaptation, and Mayer and
Salovey seek to establish the validity and utility of a new form of
intelligence, the model of Goleman seeks to develop a theory of work
performance based on social and emotional competencies. This
“competency” based approach reflects a tradition that emphasizes the
identification of competencies that can be used to predict work
performance across a variety of organizational settings, often with
an emphasis on those in leadership positions (Boyatzis, 1982; Bray,
Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Kotter, 1982; Luthans, Hodgetts, &
Rosenkrantz, 1998; McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Baldwin,
Bronfenbrenner, & Strodbeck, 1958; Spencer & Spencer, 1993; Thornton
& Byham, 1982). Though not originally a theory of social and
emotional competence, as research on “star performers” began to
accumulate, it became apparent that the vast majority of
competencies that distinguished average performers from “star
performers” could be classified as falling in the domain of social
and emotional competencies, although conceptual thinking or “big
picture” thinking is also a hallmark of superior performance,
especially among executives who often must process information in
complex situations that include a myriad of interdependent factors.
More recent research reviewed by Goleman (2002) has shown that the
more senior the leader, the more important emotional competencies
become. This finding, combined with research supporting the notion
that those in higher positions within the organizational hierarchy
often demonstrate higher levels of self / other discrepancies on 360
feedback measures (Sala, 2001b: 2002), helped motivate the selection
of a 360-degree methodology to measure social and emotional
competencies, although methods based on behavioral event
interviewing (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), simulations,
and assessment centers (Thornton & Byham, 1982) also represent
reliable and valid methods for assessing social and emotional
competencies. The selection of a 360-degree methodology was also
desirable for its ease of use compared to other methods, its
comprehensiveness (to ensure that all competencies could be assessed
with one instrument), and validity (capturing both self and others'
views) (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2001). The most current measure
of Goleman's theory of emotional competence is the Emotional
Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0). According to the Emotional
Competence Inventory technical manual, “The ECI is a 360-degree tool
designed to assess the emotional competencies of individuals and
organizations. It is based on emotional competencies identified by
Daniel Goleman in
Working with
Emotional Intelligence
(1998), and
on competencies from Hay/McBer's
Generic Competency
Dictionary
(1996) as well as Richard Boyatzis's
Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)” (Sala, 2002, pg. 1). Like other
theories reviewed here, Goleman's theory of emotional competence
reflects an extension, refinement, and reconcepualization of
previous research and theory in an effort to better understand
complex affective processes in order to predict relevant criterion,
in this case work performance. As such, the theory of emotional
competence and the instrument designed to measure its constructs
(i.e. Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0) have been refined based on
empirical research (Sala, 2002). The current model reflects the
results of recent statistical analysis (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee,
2000; Sala, 2002) intended to gain additional insight into the
structure of social and emotional competencies. For a full review of
reliability and validity issues related to the Emotional Competence
Inventory 2.0, please refer to the ECI Technical Manual (Sala,
2002).
While continued research will be needed to further establish the
validity of the current version of the Emotional Competence
Inventory 2.0, recent research on the original Emotional Competence
Inventory 360 (Cavallo & Brienza, 2002; Lloyd, 2001; Stagg & Gunter,
2002) combined with decades of research using a competency-based
approach (see Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993 for review),
demonstrates the utility of this approach for the assessment,
training and development of social and emotional competencies in the
workplace. Initial concurrent validity studies using assessments
based on Goleman's model have been able to account for a larger
amount of variance in work performance than EI measures based on the
Mayer and Salovey model of emotional intelligence (Bradberry &
Greaves, 2003 ). Concurrent validity studies, relating to work
performance, comparing Goleman's model and Bar-On's, have yet to be
conducted or reported in the literature. While such findings remain
tentative, we believe that a model of emotional intelligence focused
specifically on the workplace, combined with a multi-rater format,
provides individuals and organizations feedback on the large
majority of competencies that best account for superior work
performance. However, as the emotional intelligence paradigm
continues to mature, measurements and techniques for assessment
should continually evolve based on empirical research.
Can
Emotional Intelligence be Developed?
Another factor contributing to the popularity of theories of
emotional intelligence is the assumption that, unlike IQ, emotional
intelligence can be developed. There has been a great degree of
scepticism on this point. For example, McCrae (2000) recently
commented, “…we know a great deal about the origins of personality
traits. Traits from all five factors are strongly influenced by
genes (Riemann, Angleitner, & Stelau, 1997) and are extraordinarily
persistent in adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This is likely to be
unwelcome news to proponents of emotional intelligence, who have
sometimes contrasted a supposed malleability of emotional
intelligence with the relative fixity of traditional IQ” (p. 266).
While we acknowledge that genetics likely play an important role in
the development of emotional intelligence, we also note that
geneticists themselves challenge as naïve the assumption that
nurture does not impact nature: gene expression itself appears to be
shaped by the social and emotional experiences of the individual (Meany,
2001). Bar-On (2000) has found successively older cohorts tend to
score higher on his scale of EI, suggesting that, to some extent, EI
may be learned through life experience. However, apart from this
general, if weak, improvement in EI with maturation, we argue that
without sustained effort and attention, individuals are unlikely to
improve greatly a given aspect of their emotional intelligence. If
the impression has been given that significant improvement of social
and emotional competencies is easily accomplished, this is
unfortunate. That the development of social and emotional
competencies takes commitment and sustained effort, over time, is a
position that we, in addition to others, have held for some time (Cherniss
& Adler, 2000; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Cherniss, Goleman,
Emmerling, Cowan, and Adler, 1998; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis,
& McKee, 2002). However, a wide range of findings from the fields of
psychotherapy (Barlow, 1985); training programs (Marrow, Jarrett,
Rupinski, 1981) and executive education (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb,
1995) all provide evidence for people's ability to improve their
social and emotional competence with sustained effort and a
systematic program. In addition, new findings in the emerging field
of affective neuroscience have begun to demonstrate that the brain
circuitry of emotion exhibits a fair degree of plasticity, even in
adulthood (Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000).
While the evidence that people can improve on emotional intelligence
competencies comes from a wide range of sources, perhaps the most
persuasive evidence comes from longitudinal studies conducted at the
Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University
(Boyatzis, Cowan, & Kolb, 1995). The students in this study
participated in a required course on competence building, which
allowed students to assess their emotional intelligence
competencies, in addition to cognitive ones, select the specific
competencies they would target for development, and develop and
implement an individualized learning plan to strengthen those
competencies. Objective assessment of students at the beginning of
the program, upon graduation and again years later on-the-job allows
a unique opportunity to help address the issue of whether emotional
intelligence competencies can be developed. The results of this
research have shown that emotional intelligence competencies can be
significantly improved, and, moreover, these improvements are
sustainable over time. As can be seen in Figure 1, the effects of
the program have been impressive, especially when compared to what
is seen in traditional forms of executive education. These effects
are much larger than the effects observed in traditional MBA
programs and typical corporate leadership development initiatives.
Research on traditional MBA programs found just a 2% increase in
social and emotional competencies as a result of program completion
(Boyatzis, Cowan, & Kolb, 1995). Although traditional corporate
leadership initiatives tend to fare better, the effects are also
relatively small and tend to fade significantly over time. That the
effects observed in the Weatherhead MBA program were sustained for a
period of several years provides evidence that, not only is it
possible to develop emotional intelligence competencies, but that
such changes can be sustained over an extended period.
In
addition to research related to outcome studies and program
evaluations, the findings from affective neuroscience also provide
evidence for the potential to develop emotional intelligence
competencies. The findings of LeDoux (1996) seem to indicate that
although there are stable individual differences in activation
patterns in the central circuitry of emotion, there is also
pronounced plasticity. Research on animals has established that the
prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus, all of which are
involved in the perception, use and management of emotions, are all
sites where plasticity is known to occur (Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin,
2000). However, it has only recently been demonstrated that such
plastic changes can occur in the adult human hippocampus as well
(Eriksson et al., 1998 as cited in
Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000). Recent research on “mindfulness”
training—an emotional self-regulation strategy—has also shown that
training can actually alter the brain centers that regulate negative
and positive emotions. Mindfulness training focuses on helping
people to better stay focused on the present, thus keeping
distressful and distracting thoughts (e.g. worries) at bay, and to
pause before acting on emotional impulse. R&D scientists from a
biotech firm who received mindfulness training reported less stress
after eight weeks, and they felt more creative and enthusiastic
about their work (Davidson & Kabat-Zinn, et al., 2003) . While such
results serve to support our notion that emotional intelligence
competencies can be developed, additional evaluation studies would
be a welcome addition to the literature.
Should We Be Measuring Emotional Intelligence?
The
use of psychological measurement has always been somewhat
controversial, and the measurement of theories within the emotional
intelligence paradigm is no different. That the affective experience
and abilities of individuals can somehow be quantified has made some
uncomfortable. This may, in part, be due to a philosophical view
that has seen emotions as unpredictable, irrational, and something
to be suppressed in favor of logic and reason. Viewed in this way,
emotions and emotional intelligence would hardly be worth measuring
even if one could. However, theories of emotional intelligence have
helped to counter this view and offered the promise of a more
balanced view of what it means to be intelligent about emotions,
expanding our understanding of the role that emotions play in mental
life.
The
use of emotional intelligence measures in organizational settings
has also been somewhat controversial (e.g. Davies, Stankov, &
Roberts, 1998; Mattews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2003). The application
of social and emotional competencies, and the subsequent focus on
work performance and assessment has led some critics to label
assessments based on social and emotional competencies as
reminiscent of more mechanistic or Tayloristic views that ultimately
aim to increase performance and efficacy at the expense of the
well-being of individual employees. However, where Taylor's attempt
to apply scientific principles to the workplace was dominated by a
core belief that individuals are basically rational beings, the very
central tenets of emotional intelligence make clear that individuals
are a complex combination of emotion and reason. Emotions had little
place in the mechanistic worldview of Taylor. However, our view is
that providing a theory and assessment methodology capable of
assessing emotional intelligence competencies helps to identify
individuals likely to succeed in a given organizational role.
Moreover, without a specific theory of emotional competence, and
methods to assess them, employees may be limited to feedback on
issues more related to technical competence, or left with vague
feedback related to their “people skills” or “leadership style.” In
order to improve on any ability—including emotional
competence—people need realistic feedback of their baseline
abilities, as well as their progress.
Specific and accurate assessment and feedback on these competencies
is more straightforwardly obtained with a framework of emotional
competence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). Providing reliable
and valid feedback on specific social and emotional competencies, so
long as it is provided in a safe and supportive environment, helps
to provide employees with insight into their strengths and areas for
development. However, in applied practice the almost exclusive focus
on “performance gaps” in traditional development planning has often
undermined the effective use of feedback in coaching and training
and development initiatives focused on assessing and developing
emotional intelligence. Providing a more balanced view, including a
focus on strengths, an articulation of a personal vision and how
developing emotional intelligence competencies helps one achieve
that vision, paired with a supportive environment, can often help to
overcome feelings of defensiveness that often undermine the
development of social and emotional competencies. If done correctly,
such feedback becomes a central component of work motivation as
conceptualized by several experts in the field of goal setting and
motivation. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990).
The Ethical Dimension and EI
Could there be an emotionally intelligent terrorist? This
provocative question raises the issue of how morals and values
relate to emotional intelligence: is EI morally neutral, or does it
interact with an ethical dimension? Typically in psychology, ethics
and morality are treated as an orthogonal, independent dimension, in
a domain beyond the concerns at hand; we know of no serious articles
exploring, say, the moral dimensions of the Big Five personality
factors, nor of personality dimensions like self-efficacy, optimism,
or extraversion. The question might just as well be, Could there be
an efficacious, optimistic, and extraverted terrorist? Clearly, if
the answer were “Yes,” that does not invalidate the intrinsic worth
of efficacy, optimism or extraversion for psychological science. As
Howard Gardner (1999, p. 10) put it, “no intelligence is moral or
immoral in itself;” noting that Goethe used his verbal skills in a
laudable manner, the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in a hateful
way.
Even
so, there may be significant issues to explore at the intersection
of ethics and EI. Goleman (1995, 1998) has speculated that certain
aspects of EI may tend to promote prosocial behavior: Self-awareness
must be deployed to act in accord with one's own sense of purpose,
meaning, and ethics; empathy appears an essential step in fostering
altruism and compassion. One question, then, is the extent to which
cultivating abilities like empathy and self-awareness fosters a
positive ethical outlook.
On
the other hand, there are no doubt instances of Machiavellian types
who use EI abilities—especially empathy and social skills like
persuasion--to lead people astray or manipulate them, or who deploy
social awareness skills to clamber over others to the top of the
ladder. However, preliminary research on the Machiavellian
personality suggests that those with this bent tend to have
diminished empathy abilities, focusing most clearly in areas related
to their self-interest, and poorly in other domains (Davis & Kraus,
1997). For those who adopt the stance that the ends justify the
means, a manipulative application of EI skills (or any other
ability, for that matter) would be acceptable, no matter the moral
repugnance of the goal.
We
believe these issues have importance for the field, and deserve more
thought, study and research.
source:
http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/ei_issues_and_common_misunderstandings.ht
http://www.human-emotions.com/mindreading/default.asp
|
Managing Difficult Emotions |
Top |
university of texas at dallas/student counseling center/su 1.608/972
883-2575
Most
people have had the experience of feeling overwhelmed by a strong
emotion. At those times, the strength of the anger, sadness,
nervousness or discouragement may have made you feel like the
emotion was in control of you. Emotional intensity may have effected
your attitude and behavior in ways that were distressing to you and
those around you. So, how do you handle these episodes without
blowing your cool or having to avoid feelings entirely?
-
Be aware of your
breathing-make
it slow and deep. This simple step is a natural way to calm a
racing pulse and mind. Take a moment to check on the muscle
tension in your body,- particularly in the shoulders, neck and
jaw. Relax any tight areas you find.
-
Take a brief
time out to compose yourself.-
If you are with others and it is not an appropriate/convenient
time to express intense emotions, excuse yourself for a few
minutes. You could say "I need a second to get my thoughts
together. I'll be back in a moment."
-
Do contact
supportive people and talk over your situation.-Sharing
your feelings with those you trust can help you to feel normal and
not isolated. Writing your feelings down in a private journal is
an additional helping step you can take. A recent study showed
that survivors of traumatic events lowered their distress levels
significantly by journalizing.
-
Speak up when an
issue is important to you-This
is most effective when you spend the time to think about the
problem and clarify your position before you begin. Remember,
change in relationships usually happens slowly, not as the result
of impulsive confrontations.
-
Be kind to
yourself.-
This is a good time to do some small things for yourself that give
you comfort and provide a mental "mini vacation." For example,
take a quiet walk in the park, make yourself a meal with some
special comfort foods, or go to bed early with your favorite book.
-
Temporarily
distract yourself.-Sometimes
being flooded with feelings can make it hard to cope. Visualize
putting your emotional pain in a box on the closet shelf where you
can get back to it to sort it out when you are calmer. Do
something that will bring out the opposite emotion. Tire yourself
with physical activity. Going to class or work where you really
must concentrate on the task at hand, can get your mind off of the
troubles for a while.
-
Try to do the
regular, routine things you would do on an average day.-
This will help you feel more in control. Remember that your
feeling will change eventually. Remind yourself of past times when
the intensity of the pain did decrease.
-
If painful
feelings are a regular occurrence, make an effort to figure out
why.
-You might
include self help books, as well as experienced counselors in your
search.
Source :
http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/counseling/difficul.html
|
Emotions are the best Medicine |
Top |
By Raj
Mathur for Life Positive Magazine
Give your feelings, good or bad, full rein and you will be
bursting with energy
Any idea why you suddenly feel tremendously joyful for no
particular reason? Or why
depression might dog you for days on end, no matter how hard
you try to run away from it? Love, fear, anger, disgust, compassion:
all form a panorama that, as we experience it, evokes distinct
feelings and emotions. In reality, though, there is no difference
between one emotion and another. They are all manifestations of an
aspect of our self which we exaggerate or suppress in accordance with
the energy levels in our body.
Often, it is the fluctuating energy level that is responsible
for varying physical and mental states—unless, that is, you are in
total control over your mind and body (or just plain lucky!). Some
days one might feel that no job is too big or too difficult. Life is a
breeze and all obstacles can be overcome with ease. Them, there are
those days when even getting out of bed in the morning is such a
chore. The world seems to conspire behind your back and anything that
can go wrong, does. If only it were possible to crawl into a hole and
do a slow fade-out.
These ups and downs can also be dictated by other factors like
your environment, the people around you and the energy generated by
your
biorhythms. But how these affect an individual is a
different subject altogether. So do fluctuations in energy levels
imply that the amount of energy is one's body varies from time to
time? Quite simply, no. You always have the same amount of energy at
any given time, but what does vary is how much of this energy is free
and how much is blocked. The body's energy centers are the chakras.
The seven major chakras reside along the spine and the head.
Beginning at the base of the spine and the head. Beginning at the base
of the spine (Mooladhara) moving through the pelvis (Swadhishtan),
below the solar plexus (Manipura), to the heart (Anahata)
and the throat (Vishuddh). The sixth chakra is between the eyes
(Ajna) and the seventh lies just above the crown of the head (Shahasrara).
Ideally, energy flows from the bottom chakra to the top through
the intermediate chakras and is called kundalini. Each chakra
emits energy with different characteristics. For instances, the
Mooladhara manifests itself as balance and as emotions dealing
with fear, while the energy in the heart chakra finds expression as
feelings of love. If any of these chakras are blocked, it is not
possible for that particular type of energy to pass freely through it.
These blocks are easily discernible by watching one's emotions (or
lack of them).
For example, a block in one's Mooladhara may cause a
tendency towards fear, while a block in the Anahata may show
itself as an inability to love, In extreme cases, this may even cause
an individual to develop streaks of cruelty or sadism. These blocks
can occur due to a number of reasons; childhood experiences, karma and
affinities acquired in
past lives (according to some lines of philosophy), physical
or mental illnesses, or traumatic experiences. And, it is the
individual who is responsible for any blocks that may occur—an
external agency can only trigger a block, not create it—but he or she
also has the power to remove the block.
The solution
lies in recognizing and accepting one's emotions. In the course
of a single day, or sometimes even a lifetime, we instinctively
strive to envelop ourselves in good emotions like love,
compassion, elation and pride, while negating or suppressing bad
ones like anger, fear, lust and abhorrence. This is a mistake
that we often commit. As mentioned, bad emotions are only
symptoms of blocks in the body. Ignoring or suppressing these
blocks does not cause them to vanish; what is more likely to
happen is the strengthening of the blocks.
Energy, like water, must be allowed to flow—keeping it bottled
up will result in spillage. The first step in the right
direction is to break down the classification of good and bad
emotions. For instance, consider a situation when you are moved
to tears by a particularly touching scene in a movie or a book.
What happens is that the situation you are reading about or
viewing touches your chakra, hereby permitting a free flow of
energy. The emotion you experience is a result of this rush of
energy which had been lying dormant in your chakra. If you have
undergone similar experiences with a so-called negative emotion
like disgust, hatred or anger, count yourself blessed. And if
you haven't try opening yourself to the emotion the next time it
occurs until you feel yourself totally enveloped in it.
The experience can be as enriching and fulfilling as a rush of
good emotion. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating loss of
self-control and wallowing in emotion until you can attribute
all responsibility for your actions to that emotion. Just as you
let yourself go while watching a movie or reading a book while
maintaining awareness of your real self, be aware of yourself
and then let the emotions wash over you. With practice you will
find a little part of yourself standing apart watching smilingly
as you bathe in the purifying sea of your emotions.
Initially, you may have to consciously make yourself aware of
situations in which you are letting your feelings collect inside
you, and then make an effort to experience them. With time this
will become spontaneous and the experience will become easier,
until you feel every little emotion while retaining complete
awareness of it. That does not mean that you have to walk around
wearing your emotions like a badge on your chest. It just
implies that while trying to hide your emotions from the world,
don't end up hiding them from yourself too. A short exercise
helps: take time out in private at the end of the day and relive
the powerful moments of that day.
Visualize yourself in the same situations again, and this time,
permit yourself to experience the moods and feelings that you
had shut out earlier. Cry if you want to, or laugh, scream, get
angry. At the end, thank yourself for removing the power those
pent-up feelings would have had over you if you hadn't let them
take their natural course. There are tools which may help you
cleanse and open your chakras, allowing you to express and
experience your feelings in their true depth and form.
Reiki, chakra
meditation,
pranic healing and past-life therapy are all practices which
break the energy blocks within you. But nothing is absolute. So,
read this piece and correlate it with your own experiences.
Life Positive,
May 1997
Source :
http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/psychology/emotions/emotions.html
|
© 2003-2024
antara-oursouls.org
*
Disclaimer - Copyright - Privacy
Edited, Presented and Published for the
life and faith, faith in life
|
|