Are emotions automatic reactions to the world around us, or do we construct them based on past experiences? Traditional psychology suggests that emotions are hardwired, instinctive responses to external triggers. But groundbreaking research from Lisa Feldman Barrett challenges this view, arguing that emotions are actively shaped by our brains. So, which theory holds true and what does it mean for how we manage our emotions? Let’s dive in.
If you have read some of my previous blogs you know I have a facination with Lisa Feldman Barrett's theory on contrsutced emotions. In the realm of emotional science, two prominent theories offer distinct perspectives on how we experience emotions: the traditional view of emotional reactivity and Lisa Feldman Barrett's Theory of Constructed Emotion. Understanding these models provides valuable insights into the nature of our emotional lives and their implications for mental health.
So, have a look at these two short summaries:
Traditional View: Emotional Reactivity
The traditional perspective posits that emotions are innate, hardwired responses to external stimuli. According to this view, specific triggers elicit automatic emotional reactions that are universal across all humans. For instance, encountering a threat like a predator would instinctively provoke fear, preparing the individual for a fight-or-flight response (just think of gynormous big hairy spiders – they may not scare everyone, but I tihnk it's fair to say that they startle most of us). This model suggests that our emotional responses are pre-programmed and consistent, rooted in our biology.
...and in contrast:
Barrett's Theory: Constructed Emotion
Contrastingly, Lisa Feldman Barrett's Theory of Constructed Emotion challenges the notion of emotions as automatic, universal reactions. Barrett proposes that emotions are not pre-wired but are actively constructed by our brains. This construction is based on a combination of past experiences, contextual information, and cultural influences. In this framework, the brain uses prior knowledge to predict and interpret sensory inputs, resulting in the experience of emotion. For example, the sensation of a racing heart could be interpreted as anxiety before a public speech or excitement when meeting a loved one, depending on the context. It also brings to mind how mindfulness can make a big difference here, when we pause and 'reset' ourselves in a given moment, and then move forward with perhaps a more measured response.
Here the key differences:
Origin of Emotions: The traditional view asserts that emotions are inherent and universally triggered by specific stimuli. In contrast, Barrett's theory suggests that emotions are constructed based on individual experiences and context.
Universality vs. Individuality: While the traditional model emphasizes uniform emotional responses across humanity, the constructed emotion theory highlights variability, with emotional experiences differing across cultures and individuals.
Role of the Brain: In the traditional view, the brain detects a stimulus and produces a corresponding emotional response. Barrett's model posits that the brain predicts and constructs emotions by interpreting sensory data through the lens of past experiences and situational context.
So, what does the research tell us and is it valid?
Barrett's Theory of Constructed Emotion has gained traction in recent years, supported by research in neuroscience and psychology. Studies have demonstrated that the brain's predictive nature plays a significant role in shaping our emotional experiences. However, the traditional view of emotional reactivity remains influential, particularly in understanding immediate, survival-oriented responses.
It's essential to recognise that these theories are not mutually exclusive. Emotional experiences likely encompass both innate reactions and constructed interpretations. For instance, while a sudden loud noise might trigger an automatic startle response (aligning with the traditional view), the subsequent emotion—be it fear, annoyance, or curiosity—may be constructed based on context and past experiences, as Barrett suggests.
What are the implications for mental health?
Understanding these models has practical applications in mental health. If emotions are constructed, as Barrett proposes, individuals may have greater agency in shaping their emotional experiences (I love this! This I believe is when the 'humble' pause comes in, that gives us the space to 'reset' before responding). Techniques such as cognitive reappraisal, mindfulness, and exposure to diverse experiences can potentially modify the brain's predictive patterns, leading to healthier emotional responses. Conversely, acknowledging innate emotional reactions can aid in developing strategies to manage automatic responses, particularly in situations involving trauma or phobias.
Both the traditional view of emotional reactivity and the Theory of Constructed Emotion offer valuable insights into the complexity of human emotions. Recognising the interplay between automatic responses and constructed experiences surely enriches our understanding and I tihnk it opens avenues for more effective emotional regulation strategies. :)