I initially called this the facial feedback phenomenon, although much of the scientific world knows this as the facial feedback hypothesis. The idea of facial feedback first came up with Charles Darwin, who suggested that physiological changes have an effect on our emotional state. William James, on the other hand, suggested that our awareness of our physiological changes is the emotion and that emotions are devoid of warmth and consist only on intellectual thought. In time, two versions of the facial feedback hypothesis appeared. The first said that facial feedback affected an emotion already there, either positively or negatively. The second said that the facial feedback alone can create an emotion. Most recently, there have been experiments done with patients who received Botox injections. Under fMRI scans, subjects were asked to make angry faces. The activity in the amygdala and brainstem was significantly less than in those who had not received Botox. This led them to conclude that facial feedback can control human emotion and lack of control of the facial muscles (as it happens after Botox) can hinder one's brain's responses to emotion.
The study of psychology is still young. As of right now, we still don't know how exactly this phenomenon works. How do you think it works? Do you agree more with James or with Darwin? Does your personal experience of this phenomenon help or hinder your ability to isolate its effects on your emotion?
Well, looking at emotion under the theories that we learned about, maybe we could explain James' approach (which I happen to agree with). I think that the Shachter-Singer theory would explain this the most - our arousal (which can be hindered if we have a lack of control of the facial muscles) will be interpreted and then we will experience an emotion. If we can't move our faces and it seems to us that we're frowning maybe we will interpret that as we are upset and that's what we'll experience.
ReplyDelete