Beckes Lane, IJzerman Hans, Tops Mattie
Department of Psychology, Bradley University, Peoria IL, USA.
Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Tilburg School of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Tilburg University Tilburg, Netherlands.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 May 21;9:266. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00266. eCollection 2015.
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) posits the existence of internal working models as a foundational feature of human bonds. Radical embodied approaches instead suggest that cognition requires no computation or representation, favoring a cognition situated in a body in an environmental context with affordances for action (Chemero, 2009; Barrett, 2011; Wilson and Golonka, 2013; Casasanto and Lupyan, 2015). We explore whether embodied approaches to social soothing, interpersonal warmth, separation distress, and support seeking could replace representational constructs such as internal working models with a view of relationship cognition anchored in the resources afforded to the individual by their brain, body, and environment in interaction. We review the neurobiological bases for social attachments and relationships and attempt to delineate how these systems overlap or don't with more basic physiological systems in ways that support or contradict a radical embodied explanation. We suggest that many effects might be the result of the fact that relationship cognition depends on and emerges out of the action of neural systems that regulate several clearly physically grounded systems. For example, the neuropeptide oxytocin appears to be central to attachment and pair-bond behavior (Carter and Keverne, 2002) and is implicated in social thermoregulation more broadly, being necessary for maintaining a warm body temperature (for a review, see IJzerman et al., 2015b). Finally, we discuss the most challenging issues around taking a radically embodied perspective on social relationships. We find the most crucial challenge in individual differences in support seeking and responses to social contact, which have long been thought to be a function of representational structures in the mind (e.g., Baldwin, 1995). Together we entertain the thought to explain such individual differences without mediating representations or computations, but in the end propose a hybrid model of radical embodiment and internal representations.
依恋理论(鲍尔比,1969/1982)假定内部工作模型的存在是人类关系的一个基本特征。相反,激进的具身方法认为认知不需要计算或表征,主张认知存在于处于具有行动可能性的环境背景中的身体之中(切梅罗,2009;巴雷特,2011;威尔逊和戈隆卡,2013;卡萨桑托和卢皮扬,2015)。我们探讨具身方法在社会安抚、人际温暖、分离痛苦和寻求支持方面是否能够取代诸如内部工作模型之类的表征结构,以一种基于个体在互动中由其大脑、身体和环境所提供资源的关系认知视角。我们回顾社会依恋和关系的神经生物学基础,并试图描绘这些系统如何以支持或反驳激进具身解释的方式与更基本的生理系统重叠或不重叠。我们认为,许多影响可能是由于关系认知依赖于调节几个明显基于身体的系统的神经系统的作用并从中产生这一事实。例如,神经肽催产素似乎在依恋和伴侣关系行为中起着核心作用(卡特和凯弗恩,2002),并且更广泛地涉及社会体温调节,对于维持温暖的体温是必需的(综述见伊泽曼等人,2015b)。最后,我们讨论围绕从激进具身视角看待社会关系的最具挑战性的问题。我们发现在寻求支持和对社会接触的反应方面的个体差异是最关键的挑战,长期以来人们一直认为这是心理中表征结构的一种功能(例如,鲍德温,1995)。我们共同思考在不借助中介表征或计算的情况下解释此类个体差异的想法,但最终提出了一个激进具身与内部表征的混合模型。