Basic Emotions or Constructed Emotions: Insights From Taking an Evolutionary Perspective.

IF 10.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1177/17456916231205186
Karlijn van Heijst, Mariska E Kret, Annemie Ploeger
{"title":"Basic Emotions or Constructed Emotions: Insights From Taking an Evolutionary Perspective.","authors":"Karlijn van Heijst, Mariska E Kret, Annemie Ploeger","doi":"10.1177/17456916231205186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ongoing debate between basic emotion theories (BETs) and the theory of constructed emotion (TCE) hampers progress in the field of emotion research. Providing a new perspective, here we aim to bring the theories closer together by dissecting them according to Tinbergen's four questions to clarify a focus on their evolutionary basis. On the basis of our review of the literature, we conclude that whereas BETs focus on the evolution question of Tinbergen, the TCE is more concerned with the causation of emotion. On the survival value of emotions both theories largely agree: to provide the best reaction in specific situations. Evidence is converging on the evolutionary history of emotions but is still limited for both theories-research within both frameworks focuses heavily on the causation. We conclude that BETs and the TCE explain two different phenomena: emotion and feeling. Therefore, they seem irreconcilable but possibly supplementary for explaining and investigating the evolution of emotion-especially considering their similar answer to the question of survival value. Last, this article further highlights the importance of carefully describing what aspect of emotion is being discussed or studied. Only then can evidence be interpreted to converge toward explaining emotion.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"377-391"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12065949/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231205186","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ongoing debate between basic emotion theories (BETs) and the theory of constructed emotion (TCE) hampers progress in the field of emotion research. Providing a new perspective, here we aim to bring the theories closer together by dissecting them according to Tinbergen's four questions to clarify a focus on their evolutionary basis. On the basis of our review of the literature, we conclude that whereas BETs focus on the evolution question of Tinbergen, the TCE is more concerned with the causation of emotion. On the survival value of emotions both theories largely agree: to provide the best reaction in specific situations. Evidence is converging on the evolutionary history of emotions but is still limited for both theories-research within both frameworks focuses heavily on the causation. We conclude that BETs and the TCE explain two different phenomena: emotion and feeling. Therefore, they seem irreconcilable but possibly supplementary for explaining and investigating the evolution of emotion-especially considering their similar answer to the question of survival value. Last, this article further highlights the importance of carefully describing what aspect of emotion is being discussed or studied. Only then can evidence be interpreted to converge toward explaining emotion.

基本情绪或构建的情绪:从进化的角度看问题。
情绪基础理论(BET)和构建情绪理论(TCE)之间的争论阻碍了情绪研究领域的进展。提供了一个新的视角,在这里,我们的目标是通过根据廷伯根的四个问题对这些理论进行剖析,使它们更紧密地结合在一起,以澄清对其进化基础的关注。根据我们对文献的回顾,我们得出结论,虽然BET关注的是Tinbergen的进化问题,但TCE更关注情绪的因果关系。关于情绪的生存价值,两种理论基本一致:在特定情况下提供最佳反应。证据集中在情绪的进化史上,但对这两种理论来说仍然有限,在这两个框架内的研究都集中在因果关系上。我们得出结论,BET和TCE解释了两种不同的现象:情绪和感觉。因此,它们似乎是不可调和的,但可能是解释和研究情感进化的补充,特别是考虑到它们对生存价值问题的相似回答。最后,本文进一步强调了仔细描述正在讨论或研究情绪的哪个方面的重要性。只有这样,证据才能被解释为趋同于解释情绪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信