There are two broad themes in psychosomatic medicine research that relate emotions to physical disease outcomes. Theme 1 holds that self-reported negative affect has deleterious effects and self-reported positive affect has salubrious effects on health. Theme 2 holds that interference with the experience or expression of negative affect has adverse health consequences. From the perspective of self-report these two traditions appear contradictory. A key thesis of this paper is that the foundational distinction in cognitive neuroscience between explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) processes, corresponding to Themes 1 and 2, respectively, provides a unifying framework that makes empirical research on unconscious emotional processes more tractable. A psychological model called “levels of emotional awareness” is presented first that places implicit and explicit emotional processes on a cognitive-developmental continuum. This model holds that the ability to become consciously aware of one’s own feelings is a cognitive skill that goes through a developmental process similar to that which Piaget described for other cognitive functions. Empirical findings using the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale are presented. A parallel hierarchical model of the neural substrates of emotional awareness is presented next supported by recent neuroimaging and lesion work. The evidence presented in this review suggests that the neural substrates of implicit and explicit emotional processes are distinct, that the latter have a modulatory effect on the former, and that at the neural level Theme 1 and Theme 2 phenomena share critical similarities. The implications of this psychobiological model for research in psychosomatic medicine are discussed.

Emotional awareness is the ability to conceptualize and describe one’s own emotions and those of others. Over thirty years ago, a cognitive-developmental theory of emotional awareness patterned after Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was created as well as a performance measure of this ability called the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS). Since then, a large number of studies have been completed in healthy volunteers and clinical populations including those with mental health or systemic medical disorders. Along the way, there have also been further refinements and adaptations of the LEAS such as the creation of a digital version in addition to further advances in the theory itself. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the evolving theoretical background, measurement methods, and empirical findings with the LEAS. The LEAS is a reliable and valid measure of emotional awareness. Evidence suggests that emotional awareness facilitates better emotion self-regulation, better ability to navigate complex social situations and enjoy relationships, and better physical and mental health. This is a relatively new but promising area of research in the domain of socio-emotional skills. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research.

Neuroscience was an integral part of psychosomatic medicine at its inception in the early 20th century. Since the mid-20th century, however, psychosomatic research has largely ignored the brain. The field of neuroscience has burgeoned in recent years largely because a variety of powerful new methods have become available. Many of these methods allow for the noninvasive study of the living human brain and thus are potentially available for integration into psychosomatic medicine research at this time. In this first paper we examine various methods available for human neuroscientific investigation and discuss their relative strengths and weaknesses. We next review some basic functional neuroanatomy involving structures that are increasingly being identified as relevant for psychosomatic processes. We then discuss, and provide examples of, how the brain influences end organs through “information transfer systems,” including the autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune systems. The evidence currently available suggests that neuroscience holds great promise for advancing the goal of understanding the mechanisms by which psychosocial variables influence physical disease outcomes. An increased focus on such mechanistic research in psychosomatic medicine is needed to further its acceptance into the field of medicine.