Emotion: A Very Short Introduction

Emotion: A Very Short Introduction, by Dylan Evans

Another good one from the VSI series. There were several bits of information I picked up on:

Until Paul Ekman made a study of it in the 1960's, it had been widely assumed that facial expressions (e.g. fear, surprise) were learned. Ekman showed that these facial expressions are common across cultures and so must presumably be innate
Not all emotions have corresponding facial expressions. E.g. "love"
Research has shown that when people move their faces into expressions representing a certain emotion, they tend to feel that emotion.
Emotions (short lived, intense) are different from moods (background level, long-lived). But the capacity for an emotion is enhanced by being in the right mood (e.g. in a happy mood, you're more likely to react joyfully to good news).
The idea of "venting" to get rid of unpleasant emotions (as suggested by Freud) he refers to as the "hydraulic" theory of emotions: that is to say that unless you release the psychic energy buildup caused by unpleasant effects in some way, it will have a harmful effect. This theory is fashionable today, compared to the Victorian age that we might now regard as dangerously "repressed". However there is research to suggest that it might be better not to talk through traumatic experiences, and let the memories of them die by a process of extinction.
Evans makes the point that the "hydraulic" theory doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary perspective: it's hard to see why natural selection would have ended up with this kind of system.
Certain musical compositions (e.g. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik) reliably produce good moods in people
"The Emotional Stroop Test" shows that people take longer to identify the colour of ink in which words are written when those words are emotionally significant. This ties in with a bit with studies of repression
People in a good mood are more likely to regard interviewees favourably. So when going for a job, make the interviewer happy.

The criticism I would make of this book is that the author comes from the perspective of natural selection being the answer to everything, and I can't imagine any piece of evidence that he wouldn't take as "proof" of NS.

E.g. for "guilt", it's possible to explain why natural selection would have eliminated it, and he does, but then goes on with another explanation of why NS would not have eliminated it. And because we do experience guilt, then NS must be true, QED. This type of reasoning seems a bit dubious to me.

Oxford University press has a web page for this book.

Completed : 06-May-2003

[nickoh] [2003 books] [books homepage]