My Networker Login   |   
feed-60facebook-60twitter-60linkedin-60youtube-60
 

Daily Subscribe5

MOST READ ARTICLES

MAGAZINE COMMENTS

 20140929.psychotherapy networker online 1014

AmericanProfessionalAgency300x250

 Renfrew Conference

2014.10.NewHarbinger

MN ad

Why We Cry

Rate this item
(27 votes)

MJ2012-3A Clinician’s Guide

By Jay Efran and Mitchell Greene

Knowing how our nervous systems work can help guide what we do—and don’t do—when clients burst into tears.

At the site of the 2010 Chilean mine disaster, the son of miner Florencio Avalos burst into tears when his father was brought safely to the surface. Later that month, Caylee Anthony’s grandmother was shown weeping over her granddaughter’s death. How can two such totally different events—one joyful, one tragic—both elicit tears?

This question puzzles many clinicians, including some who are considered experts in the field of emotional expression. The problem is that few of us have received explicit training in theories of emotion. Therefore, our notions about tears and other forms of emotional release are still partly based on “steam-kettle thinking”—the culturally pervasive but biologically absurd notion that emotions are stored quantities of energy, which, like steam, wreak havoc when bottled up too long or released too abruptly. Our everyday language is rife with steam-kettle metaphors. We talk about “blowing off steam,” being “flooded with emotion,” “boiling over” with rage, and “feeling drained” after a good cry. The Freudian theory of catharsis is basically a steam-kettle model, and so are various expressive therapies, such as psychodrama, primal scream, reevaluation counseling, and Gestalt therapy. Similarly, remnants of steam-kettle theory can be found in current approaches toward regulation, stress reduction, and anger management.

The history of the field’s views on emotional release harks back to the days when skulls were trephined to release evil spirits, purgatives were administered to rid the body of toxins, and leeches were applied to purify the blood. Obviously, it’s high time to root out the vestiges of these ancient practices and bring our understanding of emotional dynamics into the 21st century. Steam-kettle thinking may have intuitive appeal, but it doesn’t provide an adequate guide for dealing with emotionally distressed clients. Moreover, it doesn’t help us answer the question of why people cry when they’re happy. Although our focus here is on tears, the theory we’re about to describe also applies to other forms of emotional expression, including fits of laughter, fearful trembling, and angry outbursts.

The Two-Stage Theory of Tears

Physiologically speaking, emotional tears are elicited when a person’s system shifts rapidly from sympathetic to parasympathetic activity—from a state of high tension to a period of recalibration and recovery. Depending on the circumstances, individuals typically describe such shifts as “letting go,” “going off duty,” or “giving up.” Of course, nothing is literally “released” when these biophysical changes occur, although the person’s adrenaline level drops and the body relaxes.

The shift from arousal to recovery is almost always triggered by a psychologically meaningful event, such as when lost children finally spot their parents and realize that they’re safe. Typically, children don’t cry when they first realize that their parents are gone; instead, they become hypervigilant and start searching for their missing caretakers. It’s only when the parents reappear—perhaps rounding the corner of the supermarket aisle—that their child “goes off duty,” and tears begin to flow. In other words, tears are elicited during the second, parasympathetic, phase of the two-stage cycle we’re describing. Again, the child usually remains dry-eyed during the initial, problem-solving phase. Evidence for this two-stage cycle has been found in multiple studies. Using physiological measures, such as heart rate, researchers documented the “handoff” from the initial fight-or-flight stage to the parasympathetic recovery stage, in which tears occur.

When parents reconnect with a lost child, they often wonder why he or she picks that time to cry, now that the danger is past. They frequently say something like, “I’m here now; why are you crying?” Or worse yet, “You’d better stop crying right this minute, or I’ll give you something to cry about!” However, the child’s physiological reaction is entirely appropriate: wide-eyed scanning in phase one, copious tears in phase two. Parents ought to be pleased, because the crying indicates that the child is comforted by their presence.

Although the two-stage arousal–recovery cycle is basically a biological invariant, certain factors affect the timing. Some children—depending on age, temperament, and background—will cry before their parent appears. They may feel safe enough to “go off duty” when, let’s say, a sympathetic store clerk takes them by the hand, offering to help. Young children frequently burst into stage-two tears whenever they exhaust their problem-solving resources, even if no adult is in sight. In evolutionary terms, such meltdowns undoubtedly contribute to survival by alerting nearby caretakers that assistance is required. This works well because under ordinary child-rearing circumstances (what biologists call the “average expectable environment”), potential helpers are almost always within earshot.

Tears are most easily triggered in response to a friendly gesture, a sympathetic voice, a familiar face, or other signs of safety. By contrast, we almost never cry at the height of a crisis, in the presence of enemies, or during periods of unrelieved sadness. One of the authors remembers being out of town when he learned of his father’s death. He successfully remained stoic while he was out in public and navigating a long bus ride home; however, he burst into tears as soon as he saw his mother waiting at the doorstep. The wordless glance they exchanged communicated that the family would survive the current crisis—a message that allowed the author to “relax” into a tearful reunion.

Although the culture is gradually becoming more gender neutral, men still have more difficulty crying in public than women. Perhaps because of their traditional roles as warriors and protectors, they’re expected to remain stalwart and avoid showing any sign of weakness to potential adversaries. Today, a common struggle plays out in movie theaters across the land. When the lights turn on at the end of some sappy romantic comedy, many men feel compelled to keep their faces taut in order to forestall being seen with tears rolling down their cheeks. By maintaining facial tension—the proverbial “stiff upper lip”—they can temporarily postpone the shift into parasympathetic activity while they hunt for something else to think about.

Men may experience “face loss” when they cry in therapy for the first time and their embarrassment is sometimes sufficient to keep them from returning for further sessions. To preempt such reactions, we typically warn men that they may feel “funny” about having cried, but that tears in therapy are a good sign, indicating courage and strength, rather than weakness. Unsurprisingly, female politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, are still obliged to avoid welling up in public if they expect to be perceived as strong leaders.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
(Page 1 of 3)

Leave a comment (existing users please login first)

6 comments

  • Comment Link Friday, 27 July 2012 17:51 posted by Tom Linde

    This article brings up more questions than answers. First, the idea that emotion stems from cognition is the basis for cognitive therapy, first developed by Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis, no?

    And the concept of positive connotation comes from the work of Milton Erickson. It was articulated in the wonderful chapter, Positive Connotation by Palazzoli and her Milan colleagues in their book Paradox and Counter-Paradox.

    Harvey Jackins on the other hand, was thought by many to be a quack, a paranoid and a cult leader. He is never cited in reputable literature that I know of. It puzzles me that you would credit him for positive connotation and the cognitive theory of emotion.

    And there are other puzzles. In the case of Cindy Anthony, you refer to a moment in which she is in the midst of talking to the press about a wrenching tragedy. How could she have been recovering from an arousal state at a time like this?

    What about the child who cries while still separated from the parent, and who then rather quickly stops crying once found? What about gasping, uncontrolled crying that comes with a panic attack, quite separate from any recovery? Why would recovery sometimes manifest in crying and sometimes not?

    Is crying not cathartic sometimes? And don't we often encounter sustained crying without self-castigation? In bereavement, for example.

    I'm finding that the gaps in logic and the lack of substantiation here almost bring a tear to my eye.

  • Comment Link Friday, 20 July 2012 12:01 posted by Tom Linde, MSW

    I'm sorry, but I must go on. The idea that emotion stems from cognition is the basis for cognitive therapy, first developed by Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis, no?

    And the concept of positive connotation comes from the work of Milton Erickson. It was articulated by Palazzoli and her Milan colleagues in their book Paradox and Counter-Paradox.

    Harvey Jackins on the other hand, was thought by many to be a quack, a paranoid and a cult leader. He is never cited in reputable literature that I know of. It puzzles me that you would credit him for positive connotation and the cognitive theory of emotion.

  • Comment Link Tuesday, 17 July 2012 15:30 posted by Laura Havstad

    I am wondering about tears of frustration? they seem on the face of it to be more related to sympathetic nervous system processes. What is the understanding of this kind of crying and tears. There are many women who cry when they are angry as well. Are these exceptions to the two stage theory of tears?

  • Comment Link Monday, 09 July 2012 13:59 posted by ishita Sangra

    Enjoyed reading this article a lot.. something very gripping about it.... on the other hand, very informative..

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 27 June 2012 14:14 posted by Neo

    Wonderful article! I wish you'd say more about your definition of emotion as "the body postures and hormonal settings that form the necessary support system for our actions," or give a list of examples or descriptions of them. I don't understand what you mean very well. Or have you published about that elsewhere?

  • Comment Link Sunday, 10 June 2012 06:17 posted by Kathy

    I needed to hear this. I am in the process of ending a marriage of almost 37 years. Through the years there were many things that brought the marriage to the brink, but my husband's anger outbursts took it over the edge. Listening to your show I realized that he never cried...even when his mother died, a woman he loved and was close to, I only saw him cry for about a minute. When my mother died, I cried buckets for months, but if I dared to cry in front of him, he would shout at me "Shut up! Stop crying!" (I was in my twenties when I lost her, he lost his mother in 2004.)