Introduction

Welcome to our exploration of the fascinating world of emotions, where the tapestry of human experience is woven with threads of joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear. Amidst this intricate emotional landscape lies a fundamental question: are these emotions innate and universal, or are they shaped by our social world? And so we begin the debate between Basic Emotion Theory and Social Constructivism.

Basic Emotion Theory: A Biological Basis for Emotions

Basic Emotion Theory (BET), championed by pioneers like David Matsumoto, Paul Ekman, and Carroll Izard, proposes that emotions are not merely fleeting feelings but rather biologically programmed states, hardwired into our very being. This perspective asserts that a core set of basic emotions, including joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear, are universally displayed and experienced across cultures.

Evidence for the Biological Foundation of Emotions

The universality of facial expressions serves as a compelling piece of evidence for the biological basis of emotions. Ekman’s cross-cultural research revealed that facial expressions of these basic emotions are remarkably similar, even among individuals from vastly different societies. Additionally, consistent physiological responses to emotional stimuli, such as increased heart rate during anger or elevated cortisol levels during stress, further support the innate nature of emotions. Ekman’s work has its critics, though, as some of the experiments involved forced choice and perceptions of photos.

Beyond Biology: The Role of Cultural Influences

While basic emotion theory emphasises the biological underpinnings of emotions, it acknowledges that culture plays a significant role in shaping how we express and interpret these emotional states. Language, social norms, and cultural values influence how we label, categorise, and communicate our emotions.

The Constructivist ‘Strawman’ Argument

Constructivist theorists challenge the assertion that a universal link exists between facial expressions and the emotions they represent. The ‘Universality Thesis’, which asserts that certain facial expressions are innate indicators of basic emotions like happiness, surprise, fear, anger, disgust, and sadness, is central to this debate. These expressions are purportedly recognised by people globally, irrespective of cultural background or language. This thesis has its critics, however. Critics of the Universality Thesis, often labelled as BET (Basic Emotion Theory) critics, point out the human tendency to inaccurately pose, exaggerate, or interpret facial expressions. However, this criticism does not robustly discredit the idea of universality in facial expressions when individuals genuinely experience these basic emotions. While there is a consensus on the imperfect nature of human expression and recognition, there remains sparse empirical evidence to decisively refute the universality of facial expressions associated with the core set of emotions.

Reconciling the Biological and Cultural Influences

The debate between basic emotion theory and social constructivism often paints a dichotomy, pitting biology against culture. However, recent research suggests a more nuanced understanding, recognising that emotions arise from a dynamic interplay of both factors.

Our biology provides a foundation for emotional experiences, giving rise to basic emotional states that are biologically preprogrammed. These innate mechanisms ensure that we can quickly and effectively respond to both threats and opportunities in our environment.

On the other hand, our cultural context guides how we interpret, express, and regulate these basic emotions. Language, social interactions, and cultural norms provide a framework for understanding and expressing our emotions within a specific social setting.

The area of Appraisal Theory is another example that may bridge this connection between our environmental/cultural/social contexts and our related emotional experience and how this may manifest. Scherer’s (2018) Component Process model considers that in any event, it’s not that we are responding emotionally to an event, but that we continually appraise the event on different cognitive levels, which creates a dynamic affective, cognitive and behavioural response.

When an event occurs, many elements can lead us to ‘feel’ various emotions. Is this pleasant or unpleasant? What is my ability to cope with this situation? Is this situation, or the way I’m handling it, normal for the society I find myself in? Have I experienced this type of event before? These and so many other questions of appraisal of an event can result in various perspectives of the same event and equally varied psychophysiological and emotional/behavioural responses. Such is the complexity and nuance of an emotional response. This consideration allows us to think more broadly about when humans become emotional. It’s not an “If X, then Y” situation. Rather, there are so many factors that dynamically impact both the appraised stimulus (X) and the appraisal of our own ongoing response (Y) that means we all need to ensure that the wider context is fully understood when attempting to consider human behaviour in a world outside of a laboratory condition.

Emotions: A Spectrum of Influences

Emotions are not purely innate or socially constructed; they represent a complex interplay of nature and nurture. Our biological predispositions interact with our cultural experiences, shaping the unique expression of our emotions.

Acknowledging the Nuances of Emotional Experiences

Understanding this interplay is crucial for comprehending the richness and nuances of human emotion. It allows us to appreciate the universality of certain emotional experiences while recognising the diversity of emotional expressions across cultures and individuals.

We invite you to embark on this compelling journey through the landscape of human emotions. Delve into the captivating realm of basic emotion theory, unravelling the intricate ways in which our biology shapes our emotional experiences. Join us as we explore the dynamic interplay between biology and culture, gaining a deeper appreciation for the complexities of human emotions.