Lord777
Professional
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 1,513
- Points
- 113
Often we are sure that we ourselves are responsible for our emotions, but is this really so?
Emotional contamination is a situation in which a psychological state is transmitted from one person to another. Both individual characters and groups of persons can participate in this process. For the infection to take place, you need direct contact. The most common example is the psychology of the crowd, which panics as one person, but it is also possible to "get infected" through virtual communication and other types of interaction. One way or another, the result will be the transmission of the state of the psyche.
One of the points of view on the question, developed by the American social psychologist Elaine Hatfield, states that emotional contamination is carried out through the automatic imitation and synchronization of facial expressions, voice sounds, posture and movements with other people. Unconsciously “mirroring” the expression of other people's emotions, we really begin to feel the same emotions as they do. Not surprisingly, research suggests that even posture can affect how we feel about ourselves.
Elaine Hatfield divides the process of emotional contamination into two stages.
Step 1: We imitate people. For example, if someone smiles at you, you smile back, and often this happens against our will.
Step 2. Our own emotional experiences are changed based on non-verbal signals of an emotional nature. For example, smiling makes you feel happier, but a sullen expression spoils your mood.
Emotional contagion is closely related to empathy, although these concepts do not completely coincide. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm notes that empathy implies some autonomy, while emotional contamination is an immediate reaction that is less conducive to the separation of personal and external experiences.
In addition to Elaine Hatfield, psychologists John Casiopo and Richard Rapson have been studying emotional contagion. Their research showed that the conscious judgments people make about their experiences are highly dependent on what others have said. The intensity with which this phenomenon manifests itself is influenced by a number of factors: the extent to which a person is socially dependent on others, the strength of ties within the group in which it occurs, the person's personality traits, and a number of demographic characteristics.
As mentioned above, in order to share the emotions of other people, you do not need to see them in person. Experiments conducted on the basis of Facebook and Twitter have shown that emotions are broadcast in the virtual space as well.
Interestingly, in this case, the infection occurs without the participation of non-verbal signals. However, the inability to see postures and facial expressions, as well as to hear the voice of other people, is compensated by new means of transmitting emotions, which are used when communicating on the Internet. This is a certain style (you know for sure a certain number of people who abuse caps and punctuation marks), typical mistakes that people make when they are nervous and in a hurry, as well as the specifics of using emoticons and stickers. This area is still waiting for its researchers - we present an idea.
INSIDE OR OUTSIDE?
Would we know exactly how to have fun, how to feel guilty, and how to grieve without the proper amount of social learning? There are two points of view on the nature of emotional contamination, the difference of which goes back to the eternal discussion about the relationship between the biological and the social in man.
According to one of them (Hatfield), this type of interaction is automatic and unconscious behavior. The process begins with the “sender” expressing emotions, the “receiver” reading them and automatically imitating them, and thanks to afferent (sensory) feedback turns them into the same emotion that the “sender” feels.
Another view, based on social comparison theory, suggests that emotional contamination is a more conscious and mediated process. People engage in social comparisons to see if their behavior is appropriate. To understand how important the opinion of others is to us, and how decisive it is in order to decide which actions are socially acceptable, it is enough to recall the classic experiment with the Bobo doll, the Stanford prison experiment, or the Asch test.
IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE BRAIN
From a neurobological point of view, the manifestation of emotional infection is associated with the activity of mirror neurons. Vittorio Gallese of the University of Parma discovered a class of neurons in the premotor cortex of monkeys that are activated when monkeys perform targeted hand movements, as well as when they observe others doing the same action.
Human studies show the activation of the premotor cortex and parietal region of the brain at the time of perception of other people's experiences. Gallese suggests that the observer gains a direct empirical understanding of what the other is experiencing through neuronal activation.
The amygdala is one of the brain structures that underlies empathy, allowing emotional contamination to take place. The basal regions are involved in creating a biological connection, thanks to which one person can recreate the physiological state of another. Psychologist Howard Friedman believes that thanks to this, some people can inspire others with their actions: facial expressions, gestures, body language of the speaker conveys his emotions to the audience.
SO BAD OR NOT?
In some cases, emotional contamination can be managed deliberately. Usually we are talking about the fact that an opinion leader or a group of people, pursuing their own goals, seek to evoke some kind of emotion in society. As you know, great power gives rise to great responsibility, so it is entirely up to the leader whether he will use influence to inspire people to creative activity or, say, sow panic, and then offer a "cure" (such a strategy is used to to get more control).
The possibility of emotional contamination opens up room for manipulation, including in interpersonal relationships. People can aggressively include others in the space of their own experiences in order to get attention and some benefits for themselves. It is important to separate the request for support and the desire to manage others. However, sometimes manipulations, like the tendency to succumb to them, are unconscious. Acknowledging emotions and acknowledging their origins can be one way to avoid emotional contamination.
In itself, the possibility of emotional contamination is not negative or positive. This is a feature of our psychophysiology, because people are, first of all, social animals.
It is the ability to notice the state of congeners and quickly respond to it, as well as to signal their condition that has become an important factor in the development of the human species. Warn others about danger, inspire them to work together or get carried away with a game - we learned all this at the dawn of mankind.
However, with the development of intelligence and society, it became possible to consciously control these processes. That is why in some cases it is better to allow yourself to show emotions, and in some - to restrain yourself. This is especially true for managers, educators and media professionals. And, of course, self-control is important for personal and family relationships. When people are in close emotional connection, their experiences inevitably affect each other's experiences.
Unpleasant emotions tend to lead to mood contamination rather than pleasant ones. However, sharing negative emotions can be helpful, because expressing them is already a step towards overcoming the situation. This is evident in national rituals and religious practices. For example, funeral mourners set the tone for general suffering, allow the rest of the people to live their grief openly (it doesn't even matter how sincere the people who kill themselves out loud - mourners were often hired for money). Today we have almost no explicit rules for expressing emotions, so we have to cope on our own.
And yet you can "infect" others with both inspiration and fun. Sometimes we just can't stop laughing when someone else laughs - which is why watching comedies or stand-up shows can be especially good in the company of people with a similar sense of humor. Often we ourselves deny ourselves the synchronization of positive experiences, fearing to clearly show feelings, guided by complexes and fears. Experiencing shared positive emotions with other people is a great pleasure, and the sincere moments that it brings form the basis of strong emotional bonds.
Emotional contamination is a situation in which a psychological state is transmitted from one person to another. Both individual characters and groups of persons can participate in this process. For the infection to take place, you need direct contact. The most common example is the psychology of the crowd, which panics as one person, but it is also possible to "get infected" through virtual communication and other types of interaction. One way or another, the result will be the transmission of the state of the psyche.
One of the points of view on the question, developed by the American social psychologist Elaine Hatfield, states that emotional contamination is carried out through the automatic imitation and synchronization of facial expressions, voice sounds, posture and movements with other people. Unconsciously “mirroring” the expression of other people's emotions, we really begin to feel the same emotions as they do. Not surprisingly, research suggests that even posture can affect how we feel about ourselves.
Elaine Hatfield divides the process of emotional contamination into two stages.
Step 1: We imitate people. For example, if someone smiles at you, you smile back, and often this happens against our will.
Step 2. Our own emotional experiences are changed based on non-verbal signals of an emotional nature. For example, smiling makes you feel happier, but a sullen expression spoils your mood.
Emotional contagion is closely related to empathy, although these concepts do not completely coincide. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm notes that empathy implies some autonomy, while emotional contamination is an immediate reaction that is less conducive to the separation of personal and external experiences.
In addition to Elaine Hatfield, psychologists John Casiopo and Richard Rapson have been studying emotional contagion. Their research showed that the conscious judgments people make about their experiences are highly dependent on what others have said. The intensity with which this phenomenon manifests itself is influenced by a number of factors: the extent to which a person is socially dependent on others, the strength of ties within the group in which it occurs, the person's personality traits, and a number of demographic characteristics.
As mentioned above, in order to share the emotions of other people, you do not need to see them in person. Experiments conducted on the basis of Facebook and Twitter have shown that emotions are broadcast in the virtual space as well.
Interestingly, in this case, the infection occurs without the participation of non-verbal signals. However, the inability to see postures and facial expressions, as well as to hear the voice of other people, is compensated by new means of transmitting emotions, which are used when communicating on the Internet. This is a certain style (you know for sure a certain number of people who abuse caps and punctuation marks), typical mistakes that people make when they are nervous and in a hurry, as well as the specifics of using emoticons and stickers. This area is still waiting for its researchers - we present an idea.
INSIDE OR OUTSIDE?
Would we know exactly how to have fun, how to feel guilty, and how to grieve without the proper amount of social learning? There are two points of view on the nature of emotional contamination, the difference of which goes back to the eternal discussion about the relationship between the biological and the social in man.
According to one of them (Hatfield), this type of interaction is automatic and unconscious behavior. The process begins with the “sender” expressing emotions, the “receiver” reading them and automatically imitating them, and thanks to afferent (sensory) feedback turns them into the same emotion that the “sender” feels.
Another view, based on social comparison theory, suggests that emotional contamination is a more conscious and mediated process. People engage in social comparisons to see if their behavior is appropriate. To understand how important the opinion of others is to us, and how decisive it is in order to decide which actions are socially acceptable, it is enough to recall the classic experiment with the Bobo doll, the Stanford prison experiment, or the Asch test.
IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE BRAIN
From a neurobological point of view, the manifestation of emotional infection is associated with the activity of mirror neurons. Vittorio Gallese of the University of Parma discovered a class of neurons in the premotor cortex of monkeys that are activated when monkeys perform targeted hand movements, as well as when they observe others doing the same action.
Human studies show the activation of the premotor cortex and parietal region of the brain at the time of perception of other people's experiences. Gallese suggests that the observer gains a direct empirical understanding of what the other is experiencing through neuronal activation.
The amygdala is one of the brain structures that underlies empathy, allowing emotional contamination to take place. The basal regions are involved in creating a biological connection, thanks to which one person can recreate the physiological state of another. Psychologist Howard Friedman believes that thanks to this, some people can inspire others with their actions: facial expressions, gestures, body language of the speaker conveys his emotions to the audience.
SO BAD OR NOT?
In some cases, emotional contamination can be managed deliberately. Usually we are talking about the fact that an opinion leader or a group of people, pursuing their own goals, seek to evoke some kind of emotion in society. As you know, great power gives rise to great responsibility, so it is entirely up to the leader whether he will use influence to inspire people to creative activity or, say, sow panic, and then offer a "cure" (such a strategy is used to to get more control).
The possibility of emotional contamination opens up room for manipulation, including in interpersonal relationships. People can aggressively include others in the space of their own experiences in order to get attention and some benefits for themselves. It is important to separate the request for support and the desire to manage others. However, sometimes manipulations, like the tendency to succumb to them, are unconscious. Acknowledging emotions and acknowledging their origins can be one way to avoid emotional contamination.
In itself, the possibility of emotional contamination is not negative or positive. This is a feature of our psychophysiology, because people are, first of all, social animals.
It is the ability to notice the state of congeners and quickly respond to it, as well as to signal their condition that has become an important factor in the development of the human species. Warn others about danger, inspire them to work together or get carried away with a game - we learned all this at the dawn of mankind.
However, with the development of intelligence and society, it became possible to consciously control these processes. That is why in some cases it is better to allow yourself to show emotions, and in some - to restrain yourself. This is especially true for managers, educators and media professionals. And, of course, self-control is important for personal and family relationships. When people are in close emotional connection, their experiences inevitably affect each other's experiences.
Unpleasant emotions tend to lead to mood contamination rather than pleasant ones. However, sharing negative emotions can be helpful, because expressing them is already a step towards overcoming the situation. This is evident in national rituals and religious practices. For example, funeral mourners set the tone for general suffering, allow the rest of the people to live their grief openly (it doesn't even matter how sincere the people who kill themselves out loud - mourners were often hired for money). Today we have almost no explicit rules for expressing emotions, so we have to cope on our own.
And yet you can "infect" others with both inspiration and fun. Sometimes we just can't stop laughing when someone else laughs - which is why watching comedies or stand-up shows can be especially good in the company of people with a similar sense of humor. Often we ourselves deny ourselves the synchronization of positive experiences, fearing to clearly show feelings, guided by complexes and fears. Experiencing shared positive emotions with other people is a great pleasure, and the sincere moments that it brings form the basis of strong emotional bonds.
