Chapter 25 Chapter 15 Motivational and Emotional Psychologist-1

Stand on a quiet riverbank in Long Island Sound on a spring day and you may be lucky enough to see a female muskrat swimming furiously, while a male follows behind in frantic tug-of-war in pursuit of the female. The female screams loudly. (Invariably, "he" caught "she," or "she" let "he" catch.) If you were on a deserted Long Island beach in spring, you might see a male gull frantically Chasing away a female gull, as the female gull keeps getting close, hoping to get a spoonful of the crab meat she is eating alone, but, after a week, you will see her allow the female to take a piece of meat, After another week, you will see it feeding a large piece of meat into the female's mouth. (A day or two later, "he" will ride on "her", and "she" silently agrees.)

As far as people can tell, these animals never asked themselves why the other party did what they did, nor did they know why they did what they did.Only humans ask, "Why are we doing this?"—perhaps the single most important question we ask ourselves, and the most fundamental question of psychology. Primitive humans have a range of answers: human behavior is controlled by gods, magic, is determined by eating a certain part of an animal, and so on.The semi-primitive Homeric Greeks, who were only slightly more sophisticated, believed that the gods placed thoughts and impulses directly in the mind of man.However, the thinking of the Greek philosophers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC made a huge historical leap: They believed that human behavior was caused by internal forces - bodily sensations and thoughts.

However, they argue that these two internal forces are in conflict with each other.Plato, for example, believed that we are all controlled by the flesh, and unless reason shows us a better way, the will will maintain a balance between these two forces.The idea that lust—that the desires and emotions we are driven by are evil and reason beneficial—would dominate Western thought for centuries to come.It will affect thinkers of a completely different kind, such as Paul, the great disciple of Christianity, and Spinoza, the greatest rationalist.Here is Paul's lament about the magic of the flesh:

Therefore, I will not do the good that I want; I will do the evil that I do not want. If I do what I do not want to do, it is not I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. It seems to me that there is a law, that when I will to do good, evil is present with me. Because according to my inner meaning, I love the law of God: But I feel another law in my members warring with the law of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin which is in my members. —Romans 7:19-23 Here is also Spinoza's analysis of "human bondage" seventeen centuries later (Part IV of his Ethics): I call the lack of man's lack of mastery or control over his passions a bondage, for a man under the control of his passions is not his own master, but is ruled by luck, under whose spell he is often compelled to seek that The worst, even though he knew there were better options in front of him.

Although Paul and Spinoza advocated different ways of controlling emotions—Paul's salvation through faith in the glory of God, Spinoza's through reason and knowledge—both believed that lust was an uncontrollable Circumstances are what cause humans to behave badly. Aside from the conflict between reason and passion, philosophers have never been interested in the influence of passion on human behavior, they have been more concerned with the workings of the intellect and the sources of knowledge.When they do discuss human behavior, it is usually within the realm of moral philosophy—how we should behave—rather than why we behave.The psychology of carnal desires has only received some attention before the modern era.As we already know, the work done by Descartes only listed six main emotions, and explained some others as a combination of these six emotions.Although Spinoza dealt with some erotic issues in detail, he did so in a grim and logical way that failed to convey their power, or that of emotional experience.For example, he defines love as "just a joy accompanied by the thought of some external cause" and hate as "only a pain accompanied by an external cause".

The first person to scientifically explore the influence of lust on behavior was not a psychologist but the great naturalist Charles Darwin. In 1872, a dozen years after his historic publication, Darwin published another very interesting little work, The Expression of Man and Animals.In this short work, he proposes that passions evolved because they lead to useful actions and increase the chances of survival for animal species.Fear, anger, and sexual arousal each produce avoidance behavior.Counterattack against any enemy and breed of species.Darwin believed that human emotions are derived from their animal ancestors with similar values ​​and expressions.Wolves will bark their teeth, humans will sneer; when animals are angry or frightened, their body hairs will stand upright to make themselves look more pampered; Challenging gesture.

Yet despite Darwin's prominence, most early scientific psychologists avoided the topic of lust. (William James and Freud and other psychoanalysts are typical exceptions.) Today, because of the widespread acceptance of psychotherapy, many consider lust and behavior to be the primary concern of psychologists, yet Ernest In his History of American Psychology, Sturt Hilgard says that during the first fifty years of this century, "the lack of interest among academic psychologists in literature and drama, the great erotic themes A pile". It was the result of their naive effort in those years, as rigorous and objective as the physicists were, to consider the report of subjective states, including sensations or emotions, beyond the bounds of science.From the days of Thorndike's experiments with rats in a maze box to the early 2000s, researchers have sought ways to link behavior to observable physiological states, such as hunger, thirst, or pain, rather than Some subjective state, such as lust.

However, there must be some directional mechanism or force between the unhappiness of these psychological states and the behavioral consequences.If not, why would hunger lead to prowling, or, why would sexual desire lead to courtship behavior rather than casual arousal? At the turn of the century, psychologists were content to say that behaviors motivated by biological needs or states were determined by instinct.However, this simplified answer says nothing about how instincts operate on a psychological level, nor does it provide a psychological condition for experimental investigation. In 1908, psychologist William McDougall proposed some explanations, which he refined in 1923.A species motivated by physiological needs pursues a known goal, and its behavior is therefore purposeful, or motivated; the psychological dynamics, or motivations, that arise from this behavior are ones that can be tested experimentally. Controlled, measured and studied.Thus began another branch of psychology.

Although human behavior, from unbuttoning a button to writing a sonnet, is motivated, psychologists in the behaviorist era limited themselves to investigating the motivations and emotions of laboratory rats.In this relatively simple animal, they can create basic physiological needs, such as hunger, and can be measured by food deprivation for hours or days, and the resulting behaviors, especially foraging, can be easily and objectively measured. Eat and walk the maze. With the rise of new cognitivism in the 1950s and 1960s, mental processes once again became an orthodox field of study, and some researchers began to investigate human motivation and emotions.However, for several decades, most of the interests of cognitivist psychologists were in "direct cognition" (information processing, reasoning, etc.).Only in the past decade or so has their interest shifted more to "indirect cognition" and how it relates to motivation.It wasn't until 1988 that Ross Barker of the University of Connecticut, a leader in the study of motivation and emotion, declared, "Psychology has rediscovered emotions."

Either because this is such a new development, or because the subject is so heterogeneous, emotion researchers and theorists still disagree on the definition of what they are working on.Ordinary people have no difficulty; a 3-year-old knows what it means to be happy, sad or afraid - just how he feels.Research psychologists, however, look deeper; their definition of emotion, which includes causes, physical accompanying symptoms, and consequences, may sound esoteric to the average person.As an example: Emotions are changes in the readiness to act that have a controlling sequence (which interrupts or competes with alternative mental and behavioral activities) and changes resulting from the evaluation of events cause positive or negative feelings).

This definition of emotion, or nearly 30 other professional definitions today, is generally accepted by psychologists.As one columnist recently remarked: "Everyone knows what an emotion is, but it's not easy to define it." Although most psychologists say that there are many basic emotions, and that others are derived from or related to these basic emotions, there is still no consensus on what the basic emotions are.Some experts include "desire," others don't.Some include "surprise", others deliberately exclude "shock", while most would consider shock a form of surprise; most psychotherapists use the word "affect" to express conscious or Unconscious emotional states, however, some pedantic psychologists say that the senses are likes and dislikes are emotions, and emotions are not. More than a decade ago, Robert Pluchick, a noted emotion researcher at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, asked volunteers to rank long lists of emotion-related word pairs by their degree of similarity. grading.A factor analysis of the volunteers' ratings showed which emotions had the greatest overlap with other emotions and were therefore most important.Pluchick concluded that there are eight basic emotions: joy, approval, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, and anticipation.He found that other common emotions were copies of these basic emotions in varying strengths.For example, extreme sadness is the extreme level of sadness, and worry is the lowest level of sadness.Among the existing definitions, this is a pretty good definition, but although it is often cited, it is not a standard definition among emotion researchers-nor is there such a standard. There is still no generally accepted theory of emotions.As we will see later, some theories say that emotions consist of visceral states, others that they are autonomic central nervous system phenomena, and still others that they are higher mental processes.Some emphasize the causes of emotions, others their behavioral consequences.A scholar roughly counted 100 distinguishable emotional theories and found that even if some similar theories were combined, the number of these theories was no less than 18. All of this may make the study of emotions sound far removed from real life, but psychologists are, in fact, interested in higher-order questions about emotions: What functions do emotions serve?Are they born or learned?Are they globally consistent or do they vary across cultures?How are they related to physical and mental processes?Most of them agreed that emotion is not just a signal to a species that an object or event is relevant to its needs, it is a method by which emotions become purposeful behavior . In this way, the age-old question—why do we do what we do—eventually became the central question of modern psychology, and emotions are now seen as crucial to the answer to this question.The study of motivation and emotion started from philosophical speculation, and in the age of science, it first transformed into an investigation of physiological needs, then into an investigation of nervous system functions, and then into an investigation of cognitive processes.It is a paradigm for the evolution of psychology itself. What kind of person would starve a caged mouse for two days, then lock it in a cage, and then put one or two grains of food far away from the cage, so that the mouse could not catch the food, and only when it was connected to the electricity Scratching around on the fence, electrocuting its claws?What kind of person would put a mother mouse at one end of a cage and her young at the other? You might think that only sadists do this.However, Carl J. Worden was a very respectable young man, far from sadistic, just a typical experimental psychologist of the behaviorist era.It's 1931 at Columbia University in an apparatus he invented, the "Columbia Barrier Cage," through which he was trying to find a way to objectively measure the strength of two sources of motivation, the hunger drive and the maternal drive . His data, he hopes, will provide evidence for a simple hypothesis: The stronger a rat's needs are, the more motivated, or driven, it will be to satisfy them.Measuring the need for food is simply how long the rat goes without food, and a measure of the resulting drive is how often the rat will jump over the electric fence to get a little more food.This experiment proved Worden's hypothesis was correct when the mice were starved to the third day.After the third day, the mice became weak and no longer struggled to cross the fence.Motivation research doesn't get more objective than this. (Experiments with mother rats and pups have been less satisfactory, as the absence of pups does not create as unmistakable a need as hunger.) According to Worden, as in some other behaviorist writings, there is no talk of instincts at all.Behaviorists believed that almost everything that higher animals (such as mammals) did was the result of learning, and they considered instinct theory to be backwards.By the 1920s, they had referred to the power of purposeful behavior as "drives" rather than instincts.Robert S. Woodworth, who proposed the concept of driving force in 1918, said that although organisms have innate mechanisms for activities such as seeking and eating, these mechanisms are generally idle until stimulated by a force. When the drive is activated, the drive will move the animal toward a goal that it knows will satisfy its needs.Behaviorists view drive as a satisfying concept.In addition, driving force is different from instinct. It is something that psychologists can create, measure and modify through experimental conditions to determine the law of motivation. Among these hypotheses is the rather obvious assumption that the greater the physiological need, the greater the drive to satisfy it, and the more activity the animal will exhibit.To test this hypothesis, in 1922, at Johns Hopkins University, a psychologist named Curt Richta attached rat cages to springs so that they automatically recorded the rats' activity.The traces left were very satisfactory, and they showed that the hungry mice stalked the cage a little more often than the non-starved mice. In 1925, at the University of North Carolina, J. F. Dashiel performed the same experiment using a check board.He counted the number of times the mice entered the box and found that the hungry mice entered more boxes than the fed mice. In 1931, Worden's "Columbia Obstacle Cage" was a better way of testing the same drive. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, extensive experiments were also conducted to explore other major drives, including those derived from the need for fluids, oxygen, sexual intercourse, moderate temperature, and avoidance of pain. In 1943, these physiological aspects of motivation were fused into a remarkably simple theory by the math-loving behaviorist Clark Hall, who argued that all drives seek the same basic satisfaction -- that relaxation arises from a biological need. Unpleasant tension that develops - the ideal state that all animals seek is a balanced balance of satisfaction from all drives.Almost half a century later, individual ecology studies will show that many animals are inactive for a short period of time after their physical needs are satisfied, and that lions stay in the same place for 12 months after a full meal. hours without moving. However, many forms of behavior do not fall within the scope of Hare's theory.A dog will follow orders not to satisfy its biological needs but to please its master.Rats run about on an exercise wheel with no apparent purpose.A mouse can learn to press a lever to cause it to drop a few drops of sweet-tasting but non-nutritious water.To explain such behaviors in terms of drive-reduction theory, behaviorists argue that there are some "nurtured" or "inferior" drives and motivations.These arise from non-physiological needs, but they acquire their motivational force through association with the original drive.For example, a dog learns to obey its owner because first it is rewarded with food and consent, and eventually it develops a drive to seek consent, which then becomes a reward. However, this jerky tinkering with drive theory doesn't explain some other behaviors.It doesn't explain why a rat runs aimlessly on a wheel, or why a mouse tries to get some sweet water.Moreover, unless "secondary drive" is defined very broadly to include behaviors that are not connected by means of a biological need, it is unlikely to explain why monkeys repeatedly Opening a window (the window can only be opened for 30 seconds) to see a toy electric train running outside also does not explain why monkeys in other experiments repeatedly released a series of hooks, even after they had learned to let go The hook doesn't open either door as well.Nor can it explain why a music lover goes to a concert, a reformer labors to change the social system, a theologian strives to preach to mankind the way God has appointed, a penitent is beaten on the back with an iron chain, a Nor does why climbers climb the Matterhorn explain the phenomenon psychologists investigate motivation. Hal's idea that drive loss is the ultimate goal of all motivated behavior was challenged by a famous sensory deprivation experiment conducted at McGill University in 1957.Some of the volunteers stayed in a small room wearing padded gloves and translucent hoods that only let in light but couldn't see images.They spent days in the room, lying on soft foam leather cushions, the monotonous sound of the air conditioner drowning out all other sounds. (They are only allowed out occasionally to eat, go to the toilet, and be tested.) Most of them, who were prepared to take a good long break, soon find themselves suffering and feeling lost without all sensory stimulation.They could not think coherently, their emotions fluctuated from extremely happy to very annoyed, their behavior on standard tests of mental ability decreased significantly, and a few of them also experienced hallucinations, and almost all of them were in the test after a few days. Just ask to be released. Clearly, many behavioral motivations are motivated by complex needs and are generated by the autonomic central nervous system and mind.This is what motivation and emotion researchers have been ignoring. Although behaviorists can observe and measure external activities associated with motivation, they neither observe nor measure physiological indicators of emotion.A mouse can tell them what it feels, and while humans can too, they consider the information undetectable and of no scientific value. However, not all psychologists feel bound by behaviorism's admissible evidence, and some are willing to accept a person's identification with what he or she is feeling.Even these people, however, in the early decades of this century were primarily interested in the physiological changes that accompanied the emotions the subjects said they felt, which researchers believed were the source of those emotions . As we have seen before, this theory was first proposed by William James in 1884, and almost at the same time, by a Danish physiologist, Carl Lange.The James-Langer theory holds that, as we saw earlier, an exciting fact brings about changes in the body, and our perception of these changes is an emotion—unlike we think a fact triggers an emotion, Thus creating the impression of physical change is the opposite. (As James said, we tremble when we meet a bear, and because we tremble, we feel afraid.) For many years, the James-Langer theory has been widely accepted by people. By the 1920s, when new physiological measurement methods came out, researchers were able to more objectively measure some of James' physical changes that could only be observed subjectively. .Their aim was to see how specific changes in blood pressure, pulse rate, and sweating, which are controlled by the autonomic nervous system (ANS) -- the part of the nervous system that lies outside the brain and spinal cord -- interacted with subjects. say that the emotions they have experienced are correlated. Inspired by the laissez-faire spirit of the era, some researchers imposed pressures on their subjects that today would seem intolerable.For example, a psychologist named Bratz told volunteers that one of the experiments they were going to participate in was a study of heart rate changes over a 15-minute period.Each volunteer was strapped to a chair, blindfolded, wired up to devices that could monitor pulse, respiration, and electrodermal coefficient, and then left alone for 15 minutes.During this time, nothing happened—some of the subjects actually fell asleep—but three times later, sometime during the fourth period, Bratz flipped a switch, causing the chair to snap back Fell down until it was blocked by a door stop when it tilted 60 degrees.The front of the chair was attached by hinges, and the back was leaned against a false door.The volunteers all exhibited sudden rapid and irregular heartbeats, sudden cessation of breathing and gasping, and a bout of electrodermal galvanism.All reported experiencing fear (and later anger or amusement).The fall of the chair should be very sudden and unexpected, and there should be no anticipated emotion, as in the James-Langer theory, fear of the physical changes produced by the fall of the chair. Carney Landis, a psychologist interested in the physical phenomena that come from severe emotional disturbances, must have been a great salesman.In the early 1920s, he persuaded three volunteers to starve for 48 hours and stay awake for the last 30 hours. They were hooked up to machines that monitored blood pressure and chest expansion, and swallowed a small balloon attached to a small rubber tube. to measure gastric contractions.He also inserts a similar device into their rectums and breathes into a machine that measures their carbon dioxide output as an indicator of metabolic rate—at which point they receive an electric shock as strong as they can easily Accept it until they make a gesture saying they can't take it anymore. Electric shock can cause blood pressure to rise, pulse speed and disorder, and rectal contraction to stop. (The data on gastric contractions are inconsistent.) However, while the subjects suffered for the sake of science is admirable, the experiment was inconclusive.Although all three said they felt angry, they paid little or no attention to specific physiological changes that were associated with or that might have caused these changes.The only physical response Landis could detect was surprise, which is often a response to a subjective state.A blink of the eye, a complex facial-body response, occurs just before awareness of the emotion, and thus fits the James-Langer theory. By 1927, however, other physiological experiments had yielded strong evidence that contradicted this theory.This is work carried out by Walter Cannon (1871-1945).He was a brilliant experimenter and theorist.Like John B. Watson and penniless, small-town teen James Gibson, he ultimately climbed to the top of science through hard work and genius despite the lack of important connections.He had published a number of scholarly articles that attracted widespread attention before earning his master's degree at Harvard, and at the age of 35 he was appointed professor of physiology at George Higginson University.This was all obtained without any background, unlike James who had some connection to the university's top authority. Cannon's subject was physiology, but he was educated by James and a friend of Robert Yerkes.Perhaps it was these influences that led him to turn to the psychology of emotion after a few years of exploring digestive control via the ANS (Autonomous Nerve).After a lot of investigation, he gradually felt that the James-Lange theory was completely wrong. In 1927, he published a historic paper that completely negated the James-Lange theory.In the paper, he presents five lines of evidence based on his own and others' research.Of these five types of evidence, the following three are the most convincing: -Visceral changes usually occur within a second or two of the stimulus, however, emotional responses generally take a shorter time, so they precede the physical changes. (Although this is based on laboratory evidence, it is a common experience for us to feel frightened after a similar accident—afterwards, our heart beats faster, we feel weak, and there is weird taste etc.) —there are some differences in the visceral responses associated with the different emotions, but these differences are not so sharp and sensitive as to provide distinguishable cues for the range of emotions experienced by humans. —Cannon surgically severed the guts and sympathetic nervous system of rats, and a British physiologist, C. S. Sherrington, had previously done the same experiment on dogs.In both cases, all messages from the heart, lungs, stomach, large intestine, and other viscera, which according to James are the source of emotions, are cut off from the brain.However, as Cannon puts it: These deeply disturbing procedures had no effect on the emotional responses of the animals.In Sherrington's test dog "with a pronounced emotional temperament," surgical removal of the sensory area did not elicit overt emotional behavior in the dog; "the bitch's anger, her joy, her disgust, and Its fear was as palpable as ever when a challenge arose." In sympathectomized cats, all signs of superficial anger were manifested in the presence of a barking dog—hissing, surreptitiously. Running, ears retracted, teeth bared, front paws raised for attack... However, over the ensuing decades, experiments that are still ongoing continue to find evidence that, in limited respects, the James-Langer theory is correct.There are three examples: —A medical team at Washington University School of Medicine discovered in 1969 that injecting humans with lactate, a by-product of cellular energy metabolism, elicited physical symptoms related to anxiety, as well as subjective feelings of anxiety, the latter in It is most pronounced in some people with anxiety tendencies. —In 1966, psychologist George Hohman, who was half-paralyzed due to spinal damage, interviewed 25 ex-soldiers, all of whom had suffered from a broken spine two years earlier or earlier.Homan asked them to describe the fear, anger, sexual urges, and sadness they had experienced before and since the injury.They said that, in addition to being sad, their moods changed after the injury; they felt less intense, kept quiet about their feelings, or looked at them coldly.Most importantly, the more severe the injury—and thus the greater the number of bodily systems disconnected from the brain—the greater the change.A man with a neck injury (high paraplegia) said: I sat idly, reviewing some things in my mind, and I was worried, but there was nothing wrong except that my thinking ability could not keep up.One day, lying on my bed at home, I dropped a cigarette butt and couldn't reach it.In the end, I tried all kinds of tricks to put out the cigarette butt.I could have just lay there and burned to death, yet, ridiculously, I didn't panic at all.I'm just not scared at all, and the average person might think that I'm terribly scared. —Psychologists have long debated whether emotions are the same across the globe or relative, that is, people feel some of the same emotions in any culture.For more than two decades, Paul Ekman and colleagues at the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco have studied this question.They asked people from different cultural backgrounds to express the six basic emotions (anger, hate, happiness, sadness, fear, and surprise), and they found that their facial expressions were basically the same, although because of cultural rules And slightly different.Ekman and his colleagues, along with Carol Izard of the University of Delaware, showed a series of people from a range of culturally diverse backgrounds pictures of people expressing different emotions.People looking at the photos almost always correctly identified those emotions.Despite wide variations in the cultural contexts that elicit particular emotions, some evidence strongly suggests that basic emotions are globally consistent and accompanied by the same set of facial muscle movements.Izard often takes pictures of babies and finds that from birth to 4 months there are five expressions (interest, friendly smile, anger, surprise and sadness) - expressions that appear very early and seem They are obviously natural responses to emotions. This does not prove that physical sensations necessarily precede emotional perceptions, as James and Lange assert.However, more than a dozen experiments by Ekman and others have shown that when volunteers deliberately assume the facial expression of a particular expression, the movement of the muscles involved causes pulse rate, respiration rate, and There are small but measurable changes in skin electricity and equally small but measurable changes in emotion.Ekman thinks these lead to a feedback effect: The deliberately feigned expression brings about physical changes that can then trigger the emotional feelings the person has just imitated. The same principle sometimes causes some psychotherapists to alter a patient's mood.By changing facial expressions, posture, and body movements, patients can, in a way, replace feelings of frustration or failure with a more positive and joyful one.This time again supports the James Lange theory: what we feel in our bodies determines how we feel. (You can do this experiment yourself. Wrinkle your face into a laughing look for a few seconds, and see if you at least feel the sensations that should accompany the pose.) For these reasons, the James-Langer theory has survived.While the evidence for some other emotion theories is stronger, the body theory cannot be ignored.As with many issues in psychology, the ultimate answer to the origin of emotions may be multifaceted—a set of theoretical explanations—a set of related but distinct phenomena.The body theory may be an effective but limited partial answer. Walter Cannon, whose experimental work sparked controversy over the James-Lange theory, developed his own theories of emotion and motivation; each had an impact for several years. His theory of motivation—sometimes disrespectfully called the theory of drool and coo—holds that peripheral cues are what motivate an animal: Thirst triggers drinking, stomach rumbling triggers eating.These cues feed information to the most primitive parts of the brain, where they form the drive to seek water or food.Ironically, Cannon is saying the same thing about motivation here as he is attacking the James-Langer theory of emotions. Cannon's theory of emotions, however, is quite different.He believes that peripheral or visceral conditions are not the cause of emotions, but the accompanying effects of other causes.在收集证据来反驳詹姆斯-朗格理论时，他剥开了一些动物的皮（剥掉了动物的皮），之后，只需要很少的刺激就可以引发动物强烈的反应。 这使坎农和一位哈佛同事菲利普·巴德想到，愤怒和其它一些情绪起源于丘脑，这是大脑核心中从感觉器官（除鼻子以外）接受信息并将合适的信息传达到皮层和ANS中的原初结构。按照坎农-巴德理论，皮层通常控制并抑制丘脑，可是，当丘脑发出某种信息时——比如看见敌人——皮层会放松控制。丘脑然后就能够将其情绪信息向两个方向传达：一是向神经系统，因为神经系统会产生对情绪和合适行为的内脏反应，同时还向皮层的后部发送信息，情绪感觉就在这里形成。因此，情绪的体验及其内脏症状是丘脑信息平行的效应。 在坎农的两种理论当中，口水及咕咕响理论解释驱动力，尽管这种理论占据了一阵子统治地位，可是，最终被其它一些实验证据所推翻。1939年，有两种研究利用了“假饮”来进行测试。通过外科手术在狗的食管里接一根管子出来，把狗饮下去的水接出来，这样，水就进不去胃里面了。尽管它的嘴是湿的，狗持续大量地饮水却不能减轻口渴。很明显，没有什么比干裂的嘴更容易引起口渴的驱动力了，它来自于另一种更深层的内脏信号，通过神经系统变成行动。 可是，坎农-巴德情绪理论却得到了有力的支持，尽管被后来的一些研究所修改，这些后来的研究表明，ANS、丘脑和神经系统中其它的原初领域可以生成情绪而不需要内脏任何输入式的参与。在20年代晚期和30年代，一位瑞士生理学家沃尔特·希斯在一种实验动物的下丘脑（位于丘脑下部的大脑核心的一部分）中植入了电极，并释放出一阵微弱的电刺激，狗作出了愤怒的反应。当希斯将同样强度的电流送入下丘脑前面的区域时，动物就镇定下来，并很快入睡。再过了很久以后，一位西班牙神经科学家约西·德尔加多利用斗牛进行了同样的下丘脑愤怒控制实验。他在牛的下丘脑前部植入一根电极，然后进入斗牛场，手握着一个控制箱，箱子会通过电极发出电脉冲。牛被放入斗牛场，看见了德尔加多，很愤怒，并开始攻击。德尔加多毫不退缩，按下一个键，牛就停下来了，并转过头去。 在耶鲁大学，德尔加多和其它几位同事于50年代用电极在老鼠和猫身上做了同样给人留下深刻印象的研究，虽然没有这样富于戏剧性。他们给老鼠或猫的扁桃体——“边缘系统”的一部分或者是古老的哺乳动物大脑，即一系列位于丘脑和皮层之间的结构——发送一道微弱的电流，使其出现害怕行为。后来，德尔加多及其他人通过外科手术在人类病人身上做过同样的实验。当一位病人接受这道电流时，他说他感觉到就好像他刚好从一辆汽车身边擦身而过，另一位说，他感觉着就好像“某种可怕的事情就要发生”在她身上了。这些感觉在电流关掉后立即就消失了。 一种支持情绪的边缘系统理论的完全不同的证据，是在70年代由一位发展心理学家J·E·斯坦纳提供的。他给一些新生婴儿拍照，在婴儿第一次通过乳房或者奶瓶吃奶以前，让婴儿喝一些有甜味、咸味或者苦味的水。甜水使婴儿吮吸嘴唇，咸水使婴儿吸起嘴唇，皱起鼻子表示不悦，苦水使婴儿张开嘴吞水，或者作呕。斯坦纳接着在无脑的新生婴儿（无脑是一种悲剧性的畸形，胎儿的大脑主干以上没有脑组织形成，这样的婴儿很快会死掉）做同样的实验。他们所表现的面部表情和反应与前述的一样。这样一来，简单情绪及其面部表情看上去就是由脑干产生的，不过，在正常儿童中，这些反应通过高级神经中枢做了一些修改，因为孩子学会了哪些是社会当中可以接受的情绪行为。 在50年代，芝加哥罗约拉大学的一位出生于捷克的心理学家玛格妲·阿诺德（本世纪中期以前为数不多的几位在心理学中获取了显著地位的妇女之一）及其他人提出了“激励理论”，这是一种对动机和情绪集合的解释，认为它们的起源在于“网状形成”（连接脑干和丘脑的神经元网络）。 激励理论得到对大脑使用电极刺激的一些研究的支持，这门学说认为，进入大脑的刺激会“激活”网状形成和边缘系统，使皮层和动物进入行动准备状态。比如，声音或者味道，会唤醒沉睡的动物；婴儿的哭声会使睡着的母亲完全醒过来，立即站起身。像不准喝水、进食、呼吸空气，或者增高性荷尔蒙水平这些刺激也可以激活网状形成，这可以通过脑电图（EEGs）——大脑记录——看出来，通过网状形成加快心跳，并增强整体的活动。总起来说，这个理论认为网状形成是一种调节器，在通过感官接收信号时会转变成生理活动和情绪反应。 可是，东北伦敦工业大学的高级心理学讲师菲尔·埃文斯抱撼地谈到激励理论：“心理学中很少有像这样在表面上很有吸引力，实际却很麻烦的概念。”因为，尽管它提供了对动机和情绪的神经生理解释，并使一大堆数据产生了意义，可是，它太泛泛而谈了。它只提供一种单面的情绪——激励的程度——而这会使其它的情绪得不到解释。另外，对激励的生理测量，比如心率和皮肤电经常与脑电图数据和可观察到的活动水平不符。最后，对睡眠的研究已经显示，在快速眼球活动期间（REM），动物或者人类处于熟睡阶段，可是，脑电波却提示出很高的网状形成激励状态。 激励理论并没有被抛弃，可是，理论家们现在说，激励并不是情绪的来源，而是情绪的伴随物。它也不是一种单维的状态，有不同类型的激励存在——行为的，ANS和皮层的——每一种都有其自己的特色。 对动机和情绪高水平的皮层影响在过去三十多年的大部分时间里事实上一直是研究的前台。哲学及宗教传统一向认为，我们的驱动力和感觉来自于动物或者生理的一面，可是，现代认知心理学发现，我们的许多动机和情绪会受到思维的影响，甚至有可能起源于思维。让我们来看一看证据。 心理学家们首先强调了动机的肉体根源，接着又强调了它的丘脑和淋巴根源，但他们忽略了一般人坚信不移的一项日常事实：人类和高等动物经常是因为心理需要而产生动机的，而并不总是由生理需要产生的。 养狗的人对此非常熟悉。把狗放在一个不熟悉的新家里的时候，它们立即会在屋子里倒处嗅一嗅，看一看，这并不是由饥饿或者其它肉体的需要驱动的，而是一种因为需要了解而产生的行为。 父母们也知道这一点。他们看见过自己的小孩子高高兴兴地一连几小时不停地按各种按钮，或者在玩具聚钱罐或者其它玩具身上四处乱拨拉，以期找到一些东西之所以能够工作的原理。 每个人都知道，因为暴风雨或者生病而在家闭了几天后，人们会产生一种出门的需要，想四处看看，看别的地方和面孔；长时间干同样一些杂事后，人们会产生干点换脑筋的新鲜事的需要。 哈尔在行为主义的基础上，弗洛伊德在心理分析的基础上都认为，动物基本的动机是要减少驱动力，可是，在60年代，当认知又一次成为心理学最为关心的问题后，一批研究者开始觉得驱动力减退很不完全，并进行了一些实验，证明更高级的动物经常受认知需要和过程的驱动。 我们已经在前面看到过两种这样的实验。打开窗户看玩具火车，或者打开门栓却不能开门的猴子，都不是因为一种生理的需要或者受到原初大脑的激励，而是通过认知需要，也就是说，是因为心理刺激。 在50年代及稍后进行的其它一些实验显示，与行为主义学说相反，老鼠能学会做一些得不到奖励的事情——至少不是因为食物、水或者其它生理满足的奖励。在好几种研究中，老鼠选择的路线会引导它们不是找食物，而是进入一个迷宫；它们情愿选择一条通达食物的新路线，而不是已知的线路；它们学会在Y型迷宫里从黑色中分辨出白色来，为的是获取因为探索了复检迷宫而得的奖励；也学会了在笼子处于黑暗时按动一根杠杆来打开一盏灯，或者当笼子太亮时按下杠杆来熄灯。 动物不仅仅受到新奇性的激励，它们会主动地寻找新奇的情景，以便使自己受到缴励。人类特别有可能尝试新事物，以激励自己的思想和感觉。我们自己跑去看恐怖电影以让自己吓一跳，我们看色情材料以缴发自己的性欲，我们与势均力敌甚至比我们强的对手进行游戏，为的是向自己挑战，也让自己的思维在解决问题中开动起来。心理学家弗雷德·谢菲尔德曾很有说服力地证明，强化人类行为的不是驱动力减退，而是驱动力引发。我们看电影、读书或者玩游戏不是非要看完，读完或者玩完，而是要其中的观看，阅读和玩本身。 这些行为在进化学说中是很有意义的。如动机理论家罗伯特·怀特于1959年所言，高度发达的动物为了生存必须学会有效地对付环境问题。对一些情境的好奇或者自我激励是为了增多学习有效处理环境的机会，因而也就得以生存和繁殖。 可是，我们不喜欢，也不去追求太多的激励，我们更喜欢适度的刺激，而不喜欢太过强烈，太可怕或者太混乱的刺激。这一点也有进化价值：我们和其它物种在中等水平上的激励中能够最佳地发挥自己的作用。许多实验都想证明这一点，在其中一项实验中，让志愿者在100秒钟的时间内解决20组很难的变形词问题，而得到的现金回报是很少的。让他们评判这个游戏有多好玩就可以知道他们受激励的水平了。激励程度处于中等的人解决的变形词难题最多。这个原理对每个人都很熟悉。所有那些开车的人，玩需要生理或者心理技能游戏的人，或者那些为别人工作的人都知道，当自己处于无聊或者昏昏欲睡的状态时，都不能把事情做得最好——顶着极想把事情做好的压力去做时也做不好。 自我激励和解释性的行为后面的动机就是获取能力和对直接环境的控制的欲望，这种理论最好的证据来自于皮亚杰和其他人对儿童通过游戏和上学进行认知发育的研究。我们在前面读到过皮亚杰相关的一些观察，可是，有一个例子在这里是极合适的。有一天，皮亚杰给10个月大的儿子罗伦特一片面包，罗伦特把面包扔在地上，摔碎一些后捡起来，又扔到地上，一次又一次地做，每次都极有兴趣。第二天，皮亚杰写道，他连续地抓假天鹅、小盒子和好几种其它的东西，每次他都伸开臂膀让东西掉下去。有时候，他竖直地伸开臂膀，有时候斜着伸在眼前或者脑后。当物件落在一个新位置时（比如落在他的枕头上）他会让东西落在同一个地方两三次，就好像要研究空间关系，然后，他会修正这种情形。 这样的一些活动所得出的明显的满足来自于找到这个世界如何工作，并获得对其进行某种程度的控制。按照罗伯特·怀特的话说： 孩子看上去好像迷醉于发现他可以对之施加影响的环境，以及环境对他可能产生的影响这种很令人惬意的活动……在这些结果可以通过学习而得到保护的范围内，他们会慢慢增强处理环境问题的能力。孩子的玩耍因此而可以看作严肃的事情，尽管对他而言，这只是某种有趣和很好玩的事情。 这不仅在儿童时候是如此，在成人阶段，尽管不可能到达这种程度，但我们被迫增强自己对这个世界的了解，而且也增强了处理问题的能力。 可是，这并不能解释有些人寻找对一些没有实用价值的问题的答案这种强列的冲动：比如，宇宙的年龄和大小、蜜蜂告诉彼此如何寻找蜂蜜的办法，或者人类性格在多大程度上是由基因决定的。如已故的天才动机理论学家丹尼尔·伯林在1954年的一篇文章中就好奇的动机力量所写的： 没有哪一种现象像人类的知识那样成为长期讨论的主题。可是，这种讨论通常会忽略对于寻求知识这种力量之下的动机……很奇怪，许多能够激发最为持久的探索，并在找不到答案时引起很大苦恼的探寻，都没有什么实际的价值或者紧迫性。人们只需考虑一下一些形而上学者对某些本原论的探寻，或者考虑一下一些喜欢文字游戏的人，就可以让自己相信这一点了。 伯林说，学习和理解的欲望在部分程度上可以由心理分析学说、格式塔心理学和强化理论进行解释，可是，更为完全的解释在于好奇的动机。按照伯林的观点，在好奇的后面，有比对于实际知识的欲望更为微妙的需要。奇怪和令人困惑的情景会在我们身上引起冲突，正是由于减少冲突的欲望迫使我们去寻找答案的。使爱因斯坦产生想出广义相对论的动机，并不是其巨大的实际成果，而是被他叫做'对于理解的狂热”的东西，特别是理解为什么他的狭义相对论与牛顿物理学的某些原则过不去。 在50年代和60年代，心理学家在得到有关认知对动机产生的影响的新发现的同时提供了大量证据，证明思维而不是内脏、丘脑或者边缘系统经常是情绪经验及其生理症状的主要源泉。其中的一些证据有； ——在半个多世纪的时间里，一般都认为，当某个犯了罪的人听到人们读一些单词或者提出一些问题时，其中的一些是中性的，而有一些又是与犯罪相关的，后者经常会引起嫌疑犯血压升高，皮肤电增大。在50年代和60年代，进一步的研究发现了另外一些证据性的症状，并改进了测谎仪技术。有意识的思维会影响情绪——至少会影响有罪的焦虑及其相关的生理症状——这种假定被确认了。 ——1953年，一位社会学家霍华德·S·贝克尔研究了五十多个吸大麻的人。他发现，除开其它的事情以外，得教刚开始吸大麻的人注意并分辨他们的感觉，确定何者为“兴奋”状态，并把它看作快乐。兴奋的生理感觉有相当一部分的意义来自于认知及社会的因素。 ——在1958年进行的一项著名的研究中，约瑟夫·布雷迪通过电击使成对的猴子处于常规的压抑状态下。每对猴子中的一只可以通过按下一根杠杆而延迟电击20秒；另外一只猴子的体验与第一只猴子的体验联系在一起。（它要么就不被电击，要么按照第一只猴子所做的，或者没有做的那样电击。）令人惊奇的是，可以避开电击的猴子会得胃溃疡，被迫的猴子却没有。很明显，第一只猴子的预期和由其能够控制电击的能力所施加的负担产生了焦虑及其肉体症状。处于电击控制组的猴子很快被称为“经理猴子”，因为它们的情形与人类当中处于高度压力和不断的危机预期之下的的经理们很相似。然而，并不仅仅是预期引起胃溃疡的。当一位名叫杰伊·威斯的研究人员重复布拉迪实验时（用老鼠而不是猴子），他增加了一种警告性的音调，让经理老鼠（但不是被动组）们采取行动。两个实验组都得了胃溃疡，可是，由于警告音调的安全保障，经理组的老鼠比被动组的老鼠所得的胃溃疡要轻得多。 ——1960年，埃克哈德·赫斯（前不久我们看到他在一只机械母鸭身上印上野鸭图案）对一些看着不同图片的志愿者的眼睛拍照，男人的瞳孔在看到女人的照片时会扩大，特别是当他们看到女人的近照时；女人的瞳孔在她们看到婴儿，特别是看到与母亲在一起的婴儿时也会这样。辨认并评估图片内容的思维向边缘系统发送信号，后者接着就生成了周边及中枢神经反应，即，瞳孔放大和一种性兴趣感觉。 到目前为止，认知对情绪影响最为难忘的实验，是1962年由斯坦利·沙切特和杰罗姆·辛格进行的。这项实验得出了一个理论，它主宰了20年的情绪研究。沙切特是位直率的人，五官轮廓清晰，他的幽默感十分滑稽，在60年代还喜欢搞些冒险和容易导致误解的实验。我们在前面看到过，他喜欢扮演一个虔诚的信徒，相信世界将会淹没在一片洪水之中。只有这样一个人才可能想到并进行我们在这里所谈到的历史性的问题。 在回顾了支持和反对詹姆斯-朗格理论和坎农-巴德学说的一些证据以后，沙切特得出了一个结论，即“情绪、心情和感觉状态的种类完全无法与内脏的种类相提并论”，而且，跟其他大多数心理学家一样，他得出结论说，认知因素可能是情绪状态的主要决定因素。他和辛格提出一种假说，即人类不能从他们体验到的生理症状里找到一种情绪，而必须依靠外部的提示才行。通过这些提示，思维会把身体体验到的东西标为愤怒、喜悦、害怕等等。 为了检验他们的假说，沙切特和辛格清志愿者们同意注射苏普诺欣，以检测这种维他命制剂对视力的影响。事实上，注射的这种药物是类上腺素阻断剂，它会引起心跳加快，面孔发红，双手颤抖，就跟一些强烈的情绪一样。事先告诉了一些受试者，说苏普拉欣有这样一些副作用，而另外一些人则没有告诉。 就在受试者开始感觉到药效前，他们被带入一个房间，和另外一个假装也注射了这种药物的学生（合谋者）呆在一起，他们要填一张5页的问卷。合谋者将他预演好的两段戏之一演出来。当着某些受试者的面，他会表演得很轻浮，很蠢，很开心。他会胡写乱画，把揉皱的纸团扔在远处的废纸篓里，只当是“打蓝球”，折纸飞机满屋乱飞，玩呼啦圈等等，同时信口胡言，比如：“今天我真高兴。我觉得又像个小孩子了。”当着其他一些受试者的面，他会一边填问卷表一边牢骚满腹，说里面的一些问题叫他烦心（这些问题问得越来越接近个人隐私，越问越有污辱性，最后的问题之一是：“你母亲与多少男人有过婚外恋关系？”——对这个问题，多重选择答案中最低水平的次数是“4次及以下”）。最后，他会把问卷撕掉，把碎屑扔在地上，大骂着冲出房间。 研究者们通过单面透镜观察受试者的行为，并给这些行为定分数，之后请志愿者填一份表格，表明他们愤怒、气愤讨厌或者反过来感觉多好，多快乐的程度。结果非常有趣。在没有预先告诉他们该药有副作用的受试者中，看见这个合谋者欣快的样子的人也有类似行为，并说他们感觉到了欣快感，而那些看见他很气愤，很愤怒的人也有类似的行为表现，并声称自己的确感觉到了同样的情绪。而在事先告知苏普诺欣的生理副作用的受试者却没有引发这样的反应。沙切特和辛格的历史性结论是： 假如没有给一个人即时解释一种生理激励状态的话，他会给这种状态标上名字，并以他知道的认知术语来描述他的感觉。在认知因素为情绪状态有力的决定因素范围内，应该能够预测到，正好相同的生理激励状态可以标明为“喜悦”或“愤怒”或“嫉妒”，或者任何叫得上名字的情绪标签，这取决于这种情形的认知方面的情况。 情绪激励的认知学说立即走红。它不仅显示出认知的重要性，心理学家喜欢的新课题，而且使一大堆先前得出的、令人惊讶的发现产生了意义。在接下来的二十多年时间内，心理学家们进行了数量繁多的相关研究，其中一些证实或者反驳了沙切特-辛格学说，可是，其中大部分确认并丰富了这个理论。下面是这些发现的精华部分： ——沙切特和他的同事拉里·格罗斯召摹了一批志愿者，有些是胖子，有些是正常身材的人，让他们参加宣称是对肉体反应与心理学特征之间的关系的研究。实验者哄骗志愿者把手表交出来，因为要在手腕上绑电极，绑在他们身上的电极只是个晃子，为的是诱使他们脱下手表。研究者们还在房间里留下一些饼干，并告诉志愿者——他在实验期间是一个人呆着——随便用。房间里面有一座经过修改的钟，要么是半速走，要么是快一倍。过一阵子后，志愿者认为到了午餐时间，不过，这时候尚不到吃饭时间，其他一些人则认为还没有到午餐时间，而实际上午餐时间早过了。认为已经过了正常午餐时间的肥胖者，比认为还没有到正常午餐时间的肥胖者吃的饼干多些。正常的志愿者吃的饼干是一样多的，不管他们认为到了什么时间。结论：不是胃，而是思维决定着这些肥胖者饥饿的感觉。 ——另一个研究小组让一位漂亮的女性合谋者协助研究。当一些男性大学生走在大峡谷上的一座摇摇摆摆的吊桥上，或者走在一座又低又结实的大桥上时走近他们。在每种情形下，合谋者都要编一个故事，是说她为了一个研究项目需要他们填一张问卷表，并就一张照片编一个简单的故事。她把自己的名宇和电话号码都告诉每一个男性大学生，这样，当他想更详细地了解本项目时，可以给她打电话。她在很吓人的吊桥上走近的那些男大学生编的故事，比在又低又结实在桥上碰到的男性大学生编的故事包含更多的性意象，也更有可能打电话给她请求约会。实验者得出结论说，在可怕的吊桥上碰到的男性大学生把他们的焦虑解释成性吸引的第一个阶段。按照沙切特-辛格理论，这些人把一种外在的提示——这位漂亮女人的在场——看作对他们的生理感觉的解释。 ——70年代后期，宾夕法尼亚大学的保尔·罗金和德博拉·席勒调查了人类如何及为什么形成对痛苦刺激的爱好，这次是食物中的红辣椒。罗金和席勒采访了费城的大学生和奥阿夏卡附近一座高地村庄的墨西哥人。他们发现，一开始，儿童对红辣椒的反应几乎总是不好的，这就排除了爱好红辣椒的人对这种辛辣之物相对不敏感的可能性。他们发现，这种痛苦感觉最开始的不喜欢会因为母亲的训练和社会情形（特别是在墨西哥）而改变。热灼感觉被认为是所欲求的这种认识会使孩子们慢慢养成对它的爱好——这一次，证据又证明思维决定着一种感觉如何被解释。 ——性激励和交配行为在昆虫当中是由外激素（诱引剂）自动激发的，哪怕在哺乳动物中，雌性发热后身体发出的气味也会激发雄性的性欲和性活动，每个养狗的人都了解这一点。另外，在许多哺乳动物中，雄性和雌性的荷尔蒙水平决定着它们什么时候会产生交配欲。可是，在人类中，外激素和荷尔蒙水平与性交兴趣只有非常有限的联系。大量人类学的，历史学的和心理学的研究数据都表明，人类性欲激发在很大程度上是认知反应上的事情——对特定于各种文化提示的反应。在成千种现有的证据当中，我们仅举三例： 1.在有些文化中，女性的乳房一般是掩盖着的，它对男人有强烈的激发作用；在那些乳房通常露在外面的文化中，它却不是。同理，在本世纪之交，一位妇女的脚踝对西方男人来说也是一种很色情的东西；今天，在像《花花公子》和《龙虎豹》这样一些杂志上，完全裸露的女人照片被认为是半色情的，只有那些清晰地特写阴部近镜头，特别是那些肿胀和张开的阴部的照片，才被认为是具有高度挑斗性的。 2.艾尔弗雷德·金赛对美国性行为历史性的调查是在40年代进行的，并在1949年和1953年出版，该调查发现，女人因为色情材料受刺激的情形没有男人多，可是，三十多年过后进行的一项全国调查发现，性革命和妇女运动使女人比以前更容易受到色情材料的激发。还有，在金赛的时候，妇女在性交中体验到的性高潮普遍没有男人多；可是，到后来进行调查的时候，她们比以前更容易到达高潮了。 3.一些志愿者在做很难做的算术题时，让他们可以看到一些色情材料，尽管他们意识到了这些色情刺激，可是，他们并没有因为色情材料而受到激发。很明显，如果要受到色情材料的激发，观察者或者读者必须幻想自己就在行动之中。参加本实验的人太过集中精力于他们要完成的工作了。