KLO Psych Emotion

Panksepp's reply

"Evolved systems do not follow the rules of propositional logic" most of our everyday emotions are such complex mixtures of primary/core (feeling), secondary (learning and thinking), and tertiary (thoughts about thought) processes that we can barely see the primary process emotions and affects that contribute to the cognitive jungles of our lives. Points out that non-human animal work has shown at least four functionally distinct mammalian neural systems -rage, fear, expectancy, separation/distress. Proposes a few more: play/joy, lust, care/love/bonding, dominance. Electrical and neurochemical stimulation, as well as non-human animal studies most useful tool in assessing these circuits (again, notion of free-floating emotion comes to mind)

Magda Arnold

"To arouse an emotion, an object must be appraised as affecting me in some way, affecting me personally as an individual with my particular experience and my particular aims" Emphasized these appraisals could be instinctive and immediate, could be unconscious

Zajonc 6 maor assertions about the affect system

-Evaluative/Affect system separable from appraisal -Affect is basic <animals have it, important for survival, Osgood suci and tannenbaum - everything can be evaluated as good or bad, 50% of variance> -Affect is inescapable - cannot always be voluntarily controlled, and is relatively effortless <liking comes quickly, analyzing why we like someone is harder -and work by Tim Wilson shows, often inaccurate> Updates: Wilson's studies showing that if we think about the reasons for an affectively based attitude - judgment of a piece of art, or love for one's romantic partner, for example -we will be less accurate in forecasting the strength of that attitude, and the likelihood that the relationship will endure (whether it is satisfaction with the art poster chosen, or with ones romantic partner) -Affect is irrevocable - it is harder to persuade that something is likable or dislikable than that a premise is true or false <attitude change literature shows this is true, affectively based attitudes are hardest to change and have largest tendency to rebound -even if the premise upon which it was based is proven and accepted to be false> Affect can be hard to verbalize - again, Nisbett and Wilson, etc. Yet, nonverbal communication processed easily Affect need not depend on cognition <the big one> The features attended to by thoughtful analysis are not necessarily those that are important for affect Affect can become separate from content- don't need to know why you feel a certain way to feel it

Why was James so important?

-by grounding emotion in physiology, allowed the formulation of hypotheses that could be empirically tested -foreshadowed the controversy concerning the separability of emotion and cognition (e.g. are there separate centers for them alone?) answered resoundingly that emotions were combinations of sensations processed by the body. Distinction between the moral, intellectual, and aesthetic feelings - or cerebral vs. 'real' embodied emotions. These are not emotions, but judgments <e.g. of 'rightness'> it is cognitive, not emotional Said if only had "mind-stuff" left from emotion, that is NOT emotion.

Bower, Monteiro & Gilligan

Acknowledged that affect may influence the accessibility of material in memory (mood-congruence). Further developed to explain how affect could influence judgments based on mood-congruent biased attention, encoding, retrieval, and interpretation of information. Implication: affect as a "tag" on all knowledge structures. . .all information tagged with valence, making it more likely that information that is self-generated (ideas, memories, thoughts, or interpretations) will be biased by current affective state Affect makes similarly valenced information more accessible in memory Affect biases attention and encoding of congruent material (unless in mood management mode, in which case can get reverse) Affect disambiguates stimuli for interpretation (e.g., "The doctor measured Ellen's growth") All make mood congruent judgments more likely

Tsai: actual vs. ideal affect

Actual affect does not differ (much) across cultural contexts Ideal affect much more influenced by cultural belief systems, whereas actual affect much more influenced by genetics N Americans value high arousal positive states (euphoria, excitement) whereas Asians value low arousal positive states (contentment, relaxation)

Schwarz & Clore

Affect as information: Schwarz & Clore (1983). "modern classic" Explicitly directed at mood-congruent memory models of affective biases in judgments by showing specificity of effects - should only work as a function of perceived diagnosticity. Moreover, gave weight to the subjective feeling of the emotion itself -not merely the tuning of the cognitions that would be used in judgment

Social construction

Appraisal to the extreme. . . Emotions are CREATED from cultural belief systems and PERFORMED as cultural/social roles . Some examples. . .

DeLoache

Attentional sensitivity seen to snakes in urban toddlers who have not actually seen a snake

Independence/Interdependence

Autonomous self vs one fundamentally socially embedded Changes not only display rules, but also when and to whome types of emotions that are naturally experienced, even at early appraisal stage

Izard reply

BE part of evolutionary heritage, feeling or motivational state that is a direct and immediate product of neural processes underlying that emotion (it's a package, no componential). Basic in terms of function Facial expressions only part of the package -core is really the feeling state Feeling state not always cognitively mediated -free floating, manipulation of facial expression, chemically induced states, etc. Package of feeling-expression hardwired, communicative and motivational functions linked, this does not mean appraisal does not play a role, but simply that emotions come prepackaged and can be induced through appraisal (normal route) or not Packages get elaborated into affective-cognitive structures with experience - e.g., feel-good=smile in infancy, infants feel-good when cared for by primary caretaker, as infant learns to discriminate faces, this eventually gets tied to Mom's face, as cognitive development becomes more complex love emerges as a potential affective-cognitive structure Notions fairly similar to those used to explain both universality and specificity in emotions by others - BEs universal, others are formed based on prevalence of thinking/talking about that particular linkage between state and appraisal in the culture If easy to talk about link in the culture, hypercognized, have a new culturally specific emotion (amae) if not then hypocognized, without labels and structures even if we feel joy+trust+dependence it goes by as an unlabelled feeling and is less likely to be thought about and expected, noticed, or regulated towards. I.e., we can feel amae, but we often don't notice when we do

Social emotions

Can do similar analyses with emotions other than pride that carry clearly social rather than survival functions Embarrassment - universal aspects of display Guilt/Shame - some universal aspects of display All have been tied to self-awareness (not emerging until after mirror test) What is interesting -is that the non-basic emotions are more often 'faked' or enhanced in their display as part of everyday life than the basic emotions -again arguing for their social function

non basic emotions

Cannot escape that fact that even if there are a small subset of basics -human emotional experience is far more complex Shame, pride, guilt, compassion -also appear to be universal in humans, but not posited as basic Tracy & Robins (2007): made the useful distinction among universal human emotions in terms of evolutionary function Basic: survival and social functions Non-basic: only social functions

Direct Action

Certain innate responses occur due to direct action of the nervous system, are unlearned, and difficult to control when evoked Blushing when embarrassed, tears when sad, trembling in fear, laughter when tickled. Least pursued in emotion research, also perhaps least controversial. For example, it seems most mammals "laugh" when being ticked or playing and it is difficult to control. Rats, dogs, etc.

lack of autonomic feedback should reduce emotional experience Diener & Gallagner

Chalwisz Diener & Gallagner (1988) et al: Spinal cord injured, other handicapped wheelchair bound, and non handicapped subjects. Spinal cord injured high versus low feedback (dependent on injury site and severity) Low feedback lower on affective intensity - but still reported feeling every emotion. Feeling of autonomic arousal not necessary for emotion - but may amplify it. Importantly, not study could not control for somatic feedback (face).

Cultural differences Elfenbein and Ambady

Cultural "dialects" in expression: Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) meta-analysis shows a distinct "in-group advantage" in facial expression recognition. Argued perhaps in addition to universality of some features, may be cultural "dialects" in other features of emotional expression -subtleties that are picked up best by members of your ingroup/culture. Followups: do not appear to be dialects for fear, disgust or embarassment. Also dialects appear to be expressed in the left side of the face (right hemifacial composites pan culturally recognized, left hemifacial composites show more of an ingroup advantage). Finally, we are more able to recognize faces as "foreign" (Japanese Americans vs Japanese nationals) when they are expressing emotion as opposed to neutral, implying something like an "accent" in facial expressions !

Appraisalists use two distinct approaches

DISCRETE: unique appraisals (patterns of thought) evoke specific emotions-Lazarus' "relational themes" Anger = a demeaning offense against me and mine Envy = wanting what someone else has DIMENSIONAL: "dimensions of meaning" multiple components of appraisal relate to many possible emotions, tries to account for similarity as well as difference among emotions -Weiner's dimensions for explaining success, Scherer's dimensions of judgment for all events (novelty, pleasantness, goal significance, coping potential, etc)

Damasio

Damasio et al (Nature Neuroscience, 2000) have demonstrated using PET studies that when people are FEELING different basic emotions there is seperability in the patterning of brain activity -and interestingly enough, much of the distinctions occur in somatosensory cortex as well as upper brainstem regions that map internal visceral states. James would be so happy fMRI studies: many studies -recent meta-analysis by Vytal & Hamman (2010) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. What evidence would you want to see? Consistency of area-emotion correspondence across studies Consistency of area-emotion correspondence across various emotion elicitors (e.g., posed facial expressions, emotional photos, autobiographical memory of emotion, emotion scripts, films, sounds, etc) Discriminability of neural patterning -can tell disgust from fear, for example ALL WERE SUPPORTED

Vocal tones Van Bezooijen

Dutch speakers said the same phrase in Dutch in neutral, disgust, surprise, shame, interest, joy, fear, sadness, and anger) played to other Dutch speakers as well as Japanese and Taiwanese. Better than chance identification.

Cognitive revolution and dominance of appraisal theories Lazarus 1968

Emotion arises from a relatively complex, cognitive evaluation of the transaction between person and environment. 2 stages -CONSCIOUS Primary "Am I in trouble or being benefited, now or in the future, and in what way?" Secondary "What is the extent of available personal and environmental resources for dealing with this situation?" "I have taken the strongest position possible on the causal role of cognition in emotion - namely that it is both a necessary and sufficient condition. Sufficient means that thoughts are capable of producing emotions; necessary means that emotions cannot occur without thought"

Shaver How do people think about emotions

Emotion knowledge as a complement to emotional expression work - problem with expression is it cannot tell about experience, however "common knowledge" implies something about distinct experience

Lerner & Keltner

Emotion specific influences: negative emotions of same valence differ in both appraisal and physiological response Appraisal tendencies: emotion coordinates response to emotion-specific problem, and so expected to bias future appraisals in line with present emotion (e.g. if fearful, will bias future appraisals to be more cautious)

Darwin and James both agreed...

Emotional expressions are important to study and should be universally recognized Ekman et al (1987) 10 cultures, allowed identification of first and second emotion, as well as intensity judgments Strong agreement on first emotion Some agreement <more than chance> on secondary emotions Asian/non-Asian differences in perceived intensity

Primacy? Neuroscience provides strongest answers

Emotional stimuli processed pre-attentively and outside awareness Discrimination of valence of face faster than registration it is a face (using MEG) 100 ms valence differences in amygdala vs 170 ms activation in facial regions. Emotional/evaluative information receives preferential processing -even for patients with parietal neglect or blindsight in their neglected or "blind" fields! How? Le Doux's work: high and low road to emotional learning Sensory information -- > amygdala = low road, fast and primitive Sensory information cortex =high road, slower but more flexible and complex Biologically prepared stimuli -snakes, spiders, fear and anger faces may all be responded to on the "low road" without necessitating cortical involvement

Appraisal Theory

Emotions are caused by patterns of appraisals and grounded in complex cognition -not physiology. If have appropriate appraisal patterning, the you have the emotion, regardless of physiological response. No locks and keys - no necessary linkage between any particular stimulus and an emotion, nor any particular emotion and a behavior, all depends on your appraisal Not necessarily universal - indeed, the most extreme appraisal perspectives are social constructivist (emotions change partly as performance in the social environment, and differ across history) Studied primarily using self-reports of past emotion episodes or vignettes.

Summary Darwin and James

Emotions were thought to be 'hard-wired' aspects of our evolutionary heritage and grounded in physiology Functional for survival and linked to behavior (e.g., disgust -reject; fear -fight or flight; anger -retaliate; etc) Universal 'triggers' across the species -"locks and keys"

Damasio case study of Eliot vmPFC tumor

Every possible test of intelligence, abstract judgment and decision scenarios, knowledge, and processing showed Eliot was normal What was abnormal was his emotional processing. . .and thus when he had to make decisions for himself Reasoning without evaluation. . .Eliot lost somatic markers -feeling states that guide decision making and behavior

Four classic perspectives on emotion

Evolutionary physiological cognitive appraisal social constructivist

Scherer 1997

Examined cultural congruence in appraisal-emotion linkages Do cultures differ in appraisal of events? Given emotion x, does one invariably get appraisal y? 37 countries Had them "match" emotions and appraisals. Largest cultural differences found in immorality and unfairness, almost no differences for valence, goal and coping dimensions. African countries especially high on unfairness, external causation and immorality, Scherer thought maybe due to witchcraft beliefs. . . More importantly, emotion appraisal profiles seemed VERY similar. In other words -appraisal patterns for emotion seem universal (assumption being that if we have similar patterning across appraisal dimensions, it will be associated with similar emotional output)

In terms of emotional experience, the question of basic emotions asks...

Finally - in terms of emotional experience, the question of BE asks "What lies beneath?" these experiences. Most everyone (BE and componentialists alike) agrees on a general pos/neg distinction (although debate on whether one positive vs negative bipolar dimension vs two separable affect systems: approach and avoidance). BE says that additionally, we inherited a set of full-blown emotion 'programs' (similar in antecedents, experiences, and consequences). Componentialists say we didn't - Has implications for understanding mental illness if there are multiple distinct programs that can go wrong as opposed to simple good//bad or approach/avoidance. So for example, the treatment of generalized anxiety would NEED to differ from depression if you come from a BE approach because they are distinct programs. If you are a componentialist, then there might be similarities in treatment if you saw similarities in components such as underlying negative valence

What about cross cultures follow up studies

Follow up studies: Shaver et al (1992, 2001) Cross cultural sorting studies in Beijing and Indonesia and Italy - you find the same clusters across culture (love, happiness, anger, fear sadness) So, BEs appear to exist at basic level of categorization.

The Himba and universal emotion recognition Sauter

For each emotion, the participant listened to a short prerecorded emotion story describing a scenario that would elicit that emotion After each story, the participant was asked how the person was feeling to ensure that they had understood the story. No participants failed to identify the intended emotion from any of the stories, The stories were played over headphones from recordings. Once they had understood the story, the participant was played two sounds over headphones. Stimulus presentation was controlled by the experimenter pressing two computer mice in turn, each playing one of the sounds. The participant was asked which one was the kind of sound that the person in the story would make. They were allowed to hear the stimuli as many times as they needed to make a decision. Relatively close correlation between English and Himba listeners

Seimer 2007

Gave short scenarios designed to elicit specific emotions "Your sister ruins the stereo set you lent her." (14 scenarios of each of 4 different emotions -gratitude, guilt, anger, pity) Target emotion =anger Necessary appraisals = negative event, others responsibility Timed how fast participants could respond to target emotion after scenario, or necessary appraisals after scenario LOGIC: if eventappraisalemotion, then appraisals will be FASTER then emotion judgments No - can judge the emotion faster than can answer any of the underlying appraisal questions

Other forms of emotional expression Touch

General notion that most touch is positive and soothing primate grooming, infant attachment, body contact in other mammals, etc natural function of most touch

Emotions and Judgment Processing style

General valence effects: Positive moods: facilitate creativity, broad associative thinking, reliance on heuristics in persuasion and stereotypes in impression formation Negative moods: encourage analytic thought and attention to detail, reliance on arguments in persuasion and individuating features in impression formation Thought to reflect functional signals from affect system about the environment and it's demands. Nice example of signaling: Lenny Martin's persistence effects (how long you would persist at a task -for example, naming as many birds as you can) as a function of mood, and instructions to continue based on judgments of sufficiency vs enjoyment. Sufficiency -neg mood = more persistence; Enjoyment -pos mood led to more persistence Are there specific emotional effects beyond positive and negative valence?

Disgust and moral judgments

Haidt's (2001) "Emotional dog and rational tail" proposes social-intuitionist model of moral judgment. In this model -affective responses arise first, with reasoning after. INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS Moral intuition: sudden appearance in consciousness of moral judgment (good/bad) much like an aesthetic judgment Moral reasoning: intentional, effortful controllable and reasoner is aware of process Unlike prior researchers of moral judgment (e.g., Kohlberg) Haidt believes that moral reasoning is produced primarily to verbally justify one's moral judgments to others - and is motivated reasoning, more like lawyer than scientist. Post-hoc construction, but gives illusion of objective reasoning. In other words, moral judgments provide the perfect place for affect to infuse in and bias the processing of information

Eckman's neurocultural theory 1972

Hardwired species-specific linkages of emotions to facial patterning. Cultural "display rules" can modulate the expression (when displayed and intensity of display) but you will NEVER see interchangeability of facial patterns (e.g., culture A using a smile to express pleasure, whereas culture B uses it to express disgust)

Can we communicate more with touch if we try? Hertenstein

Hertenstein et al (2005) had two individuals sit at a table with a curtain. The "receiver's" arm was on the "giver's" side of the curtain (so no visual information). Giver tried to communicate 13 different emotions, each for 2 seconds, receiver then chose from a list. Anger, disgust, and fear reliable communicated above chance. Also love, gratitude, and sympathy! Happiness, sadness and embarrassment not communicated well. Importantly, does not imply we spontaneously use touch in all of these ways -but that we can decode one another's emotional intentions through touch at better than chance levels for at least some emotions

lack of autonomic feedback should reduce emotional experience Support from Hohman

Hohman's spinal cord patients with evidence that feeling was reduced with higher lesions. "Now I don't get a feeling of physical animation. Sometimes I get angry when I see some injustice and I yell and cuss and raise hell sometimes because if you don't, people will take advantage f you. But it doesn't have the heat in it. It's a mental kind of anger"

Hyper vs Hypo cognized emotions

Hypercognized emotions are those the culture is concerned with, multiple labels denoting nuances of experience, probably recognized, thought about, and communicated more frequently by cultural members (in US, anger is hypercognized -miffed, cross, angry, enraged, etc. Likewise in China 113 words for shame) Hypocognized emotions are not discussed or thought of in a culture, may not even have a label. Amae and Schaudenfreude- hypocognized in US, can still be experienced, but less likely to be thought about, recognized or remembered because not term

How to differentiate if appraisal is causal or correlate

If appraisal of a situation is NECESSARY for understanding/experiencing the emotion -then what does that imply for the process of emotional experience? They have to come first!

How does an evolutionary perspective on emotion shape the research methods one would use?

If you define emotion from this perspective. . . The evokers of emotion used will be universal (evolutionary keys): Predators, babies, etc Physiological measures as or more important than self-report: Autonomic measures (cardiac impedance, GSR, facial EMG or facial coding) Questions will assume cultural universality

Lee

Independent individuals regulate most often through a promotion focus (focus on potential gains/non-gains) Thus - positive events evoke joy (got something desired), negative events evoke sadness (failed to get a desired outcome) Interdependent individuals regulate most often through a prevention focus (focus on potential losses/non-losses). Thus - positive events evoke relief/relaxation (successfully avoided a loss) and negative events evoke anxiety (potential loss occurred) Found evidence across cultures (China vs US), individuals who differ in self-construal in the US, and even situations that differ in self-construal (N Americans thinking of themselves as part of a team or alone) Potential emotional experience thus may be universal -when someone appraises an event automatically as avoiding a loss, get relief. But there are cultural, situational, and self-construal differences in tendency to do it

Even if appraisals are not necessarily causal, still important.. why?

Is a good reflection of how we intuitively understand and experience the emotional process Allows for greater flexibility in understanding individual and cultural differences in emotional experience It may be true that on the one hand, a mouse and I will react similarly to a larger predator (Evo/Physio) It is also true that a colleague and I might react very differently to a journal article getting accepted (Appraisal/Construction) These different appraisal tendencies and thus emotional tendencies are a fundamental part of personality (e.g., neuroticism, agreeableness, etc) Allows for conscious regulation of emotion -emotional experience changed through changing patterns of appraisal across time after an event Also allows for therapeutic intervention when appraisals appear to be dysfunctional (e.g., depression)

Sauter on positive vocalizations 2010

Laughter communicates a feeling of enjoyment across cultures, while non-verbal vocalizations of several other positive emotions, such as achievement or sensual pleasure, are recognizable only within, but not across, cultural boundaries. Are these positive vocalizations nevertheless interpreted cross-culturally as signaling positive affect? In a match-to-sample task, positive emotional vocal stimuli were paired with positive and negative facial expressions, by English participants and members of the Himba, a semi-nomadic, culturally isolated Namibian group. The results showed that laughter was associated with a smiling facial expression across both groups, consistent with previous work showing that human laughter is a positive, social signal with deep evolutionary roots. However, non-verbal vocalizations of achievement, sensual pleasure and relief were not cross-culturally associated with smiling facial expressions, perhaps indicating that these types of vocalizations are not cross-culturally interpreted as communicating a positive emotional state, or alternatively that these emotions are associated with positive facial expression other than smiling.

Emotions and judgment after 9/11: Demonstration of specific emotion effects

Lerner and colleagues 973 participants were random digit dialed and answered questions about September 11th attacks 9-23 days after attack Completed Anxiety Subscale (fear) and Desire for Vengeance Scale (anger) In another study, brought folks into lab and manipulated emotions by TV clips about 9/11 designed to induce anger vs fear 6-10 weeks later Judged likelihood of future events happening for the U.S. on a scale of 0-8 (0 =extremely unlikely, 8 = extremely likely) Rated if they personally and if the average American would experience risky event or take a precautionary action Rated government policies Provide Americans with honest,accurate information about the situation, even if the information worries people . Invest in general capabilities, like stronger public health, more than a specific solution like smallpox vaccinations Deport foreigners in the U.S. who lack valid visas Strengthen ties with Muslim countries

Major goal - appraisal theory

Major goal is understanding how we think about emotional events, and how different patterns of thought are at the core of emotion elicitation and emotion differentiation.

Major goal - Darwin/James

Major goal is understanding why we have certain emotions, what features of he environment evoke them, and how they are linked to behavioral responding/expression

Other forms of emotional expression Vocal tones

Many studies have examined emotional prosody not what we say, but how we say it as an emotional communication device

Cultural differences Matsumoto

Matsumoto et al (2002) found Americans generally better at facial expressions of the negative emotions (anger, disgust, sadness) but not positive than Asian counterparts. Argues members of individualistic cultures encouraged to express emotions more than collectivist -thus we have become more attuned to interpreting them and viewing them as reflections of underlying emotional experience.

Zajonc Results

Mere exposure as one form of evidence; Liking was independent of recognition. Many many followups. Meta-analysis of 208 studies showed effect was robust and reliable. Strongest for brief presentations of unfamiliar stimuli Subliminal presentations work REALLY well Presentations of unfamiliar people and melodies fall pretty o mere exposure (not just ideographs) Why? It seems the experience of fluency (ease of processing) is usually interpreted as liking. Even amnesics show the effect (so truly independent from conscious cognition)

Vocal tones Juslin & Laukka

Meta-analysis of 60 studies. Vocal tones of anger, fear, happiness, sadness and tenderness are easily distinguishable and can be recognized by others well above chance (around 70% identification accuracy on average). Better accuracy for members of own culture.

Evidence disgust and moral judgments

Moral reasoning is modestly related to moral action, but may be result of third variable (intelligence and hot/cool system dynamics) Moral emotion is more strongly related to moral action (empathy-altruism as well as shame/guilt as brakes on immoral action). Similar to somatic markers in terms of intuition guiding behavior

Seligman

Most common phobias around the world.. things that killed our evolutionary ancestors

Ekman reply

Not disagreement as portrayed in terms of set of basics if look at facial expression (happy, sad, angry, disgust, fear) Of course facial expressions aren't just for emotion, but there are several that are universally associated with emotion Full expressions, not single muscle actions linked to subcomponents, have universal communicative value, moreover, facial muscle action not a tidy one-to-one system as assumed by O & T (in other words, their proposal of appraisal and muscular subcomponents actually physiologically untenable) Thus one criteria for "basic" could be facial expression -emerging as a whole as part of basic emotion program Another might be physiological differentiation (autonomic or brain patterning). If basic differentiable in a way that non-basics are not -provide good evidence

Somatic marker hypothesis

Nqvi et al: Factual-emotional sets: emotion associated with experiences, and somatosensory patterns called up in "as-if body loop" when current or future response options are considered. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VM) repository for these linkages Covert: process remains below consciousness but biases cognitive processing Overt: process is felt as signal, alerts you to goodness or badness of decision, conscious

Panksepp argument for expectancy

O&T disregarded expectancy as a possible emotion; Shaver did not include expectancy related words in his lexicon. So is expectancy a basic emotion? Positively valenced anticipatory state, encourages exploration/foraging. We might call it "engagement" Panksepp's evidence (important because it would apply to all basics): neural circuits genetically prewired organize diverse sets of behavior (not just one, lots of goal seeking behaviors. Similarly for fear you can freeze, flee, or defensively aggress) Change sensitivities of sensory systems that have been aroused (measurable). In the case of expectancy, appears to increase arousal/vigilance Activity lasts longer than precipitating circumstance (think scary event: fear. When scary event ends -still have consequences of fear for awhile?) Emotional circuits can come under control of emotionally neural events (translation: can be conditioned. Can learn a fear response, or anticipation response -unconsciously) Emotive circuits have reciprocal interactions with higher order brain systems (decision making, conscious experience. More on this next week) For Panksepp then, criteria for basic emotions is NEURAL CIRCUITRY. Thus, will by definition be a very limited set. Also, only biological evidence can tell up about basic emotions - psychological or mere "logical" inquiries cannot answer these questions. 2007 UPDATE: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC, and PLAY circuits have been mapped in multiple mammals (from rats to primates)

Principle of anithesis

Opposing emotions will often evoke opposing expressions if certain actions have been regularly performed, in accordance with our first principle, under a certain frame of mind, there will be a strong and involuntary tendency to the performance of directly opposite actions, whether or not these are of any use, under the excitement of an opposite frame of mind.

Biologically basic Ortony and turner

Ortony and Turner thought some things were biologically basic, but not the whole emotion. thought appraisal subcomponents more likely to be biologically linked to facial muscles rather than full blow expression-emotion linkages, similarly to ANS. But admit open question as to why co-occurence, and conclude its because of co-occurence in the world (events appraised), not in the person. Persuasive? O&Ts solution: emotions are an assemblage of appraisal components, which are basic. Basic component is simply pos/neg -neg leads to distress - which then becomes specialized as a function of other appraisals. The basic elements are cognitive appraisals

Vocal tones Fernald

Parents speaking to infants across all languages (romance, tone, etc) use same auditory tones (same "melody") to communicate pleasure and displeasure.

Shaver study 2

Participants given core emotions (fear, anger, sadness, joy, love) and either asked "Self" experience or "typical" experience What felt, thought, said, how behaves, physio experience if any, how long it lasted and how changed Generated emotion prototype experiences: scripts with common appraisals, expressions, action tendencies, subjective feelings and physiological states: agreement across participants as to what made each emotion distinct. Greater breadth in appraisal than in responses/experiences. Also interestingly-each prototype experience began with a basic interpretation of whether the situation was good or bad (we'll come back to this point when we talk about irreducibility).

Functionality

Physiological responses ready the animal for necessary action. More recent researchers have focused on assessing the functions of many emotions (a much larger set than Darwin considered, table in your text considers functions of 22 emotions -including multiple variants of "love")

James: No shade of emotion should be without a particular bodily signature. Hypothesis

Physiological separability

Powers

Powers -basic set derived from emotional experience? Asked 219 people to rate 30 emotions in terms of frequency in general, as well as within past week. Wanted to test whether better model fit for general pos/neg than subset of basics. Massive and complicated structural analysis. Found better model fit for subset (BEs of anger, sadness, disgust, fear, happiness. *Did not include any terms relevant to love/affection) than the fit for two-dimensions (good/bad). Translation: people differ in their general experiences of emotions, not in overall positive versus negative states (e.g., someone might feel both a lot of happiness and a lot of anger, but very little fear or sadness). In general - Across studies of folk understanding of emotion, there seems to be consensus on basic level of emotion terms

Gendron

Reported that there is not universality in emotion vocal expression understanding - also used the Himba Trials were initialized by the researcher and after 250 ms a tone was played to cue the participant to the onset of the stimulus. 250 ms later a vocalization stimulus was played and participants verbally responded to the stimulus. If the participant did not start to provide a verbal response without prompting, we asked, "What emotion did you hear?" Amusement was the only one that was relatively close

Basic level categories

Rosch's basic level categories -level at which people are most comfortable (we say "bird" rather than "animal" -superordinate, or "robin" subordinate -because bird carries the most useful information in smallest cognitive 'package' Basic categories are represented as prototypes, with a fuzzy set around them that bear a resemblance (e.g. "blue" can include all of these, but not Basic level categories also seem to say something about the structure of the "world" - at the features that are most salient and important for humans to notice and distinguish. Thus color protoypes: red, blue, green -actually reflect a physical reality. (similarly, bird, dog, tree, reflect important 'real' distinctions) Might emotion protoypes reflect a psychological reality?

Schwarz & clore study 1

S1: Recall and description of happy or sad event in unfamiliar room -with expectation that room would make one feel depressed or elated (or no side effect control). Life satisfaction judgments. Mood influenced judgment only when unexpected and thus diagnostic

Shaver experiment Study 1

S1: similarity sorting of 213 terms: "which go together? No correct answer. make as many or as few categories as you wish?" Componentialists might think either 2 clusters (pos, neg or approach/avoid) or lots and lots of clusters reflecting appraisal differences RESULTS: 6 clusters = love/affection, joy, anger, sadness, fear, surprise (but smaller). 3 dimensions: emotions represented best across axis that includes evaluation (pos/neg), potency (intensity), and activity (eliciting condition or experience). Thus, he believed all emotion terms (in english) exist to distinguish the core emotion category (BE) + intensity +eliciting condition (disappointment vs grief for example) Core emotions match to Fehr & Russells spontaneous emotion naming work (prototypes come first), as well as Bretherton & Beeghly's language learning work (toddlers use happy, sad, mad, scared, surprised, and yuk - VERY early) Core emotions also match to Ekman's expression work relatively well

Schwarz & Clore study 2

S2: Sunny vs Cloudy/rainy spring days- "how's the weather down there" or no mention. Life satisfaction judgments higher on sunny than rainy days but only if attention not drawn to weather.

Do members of different cultures differ in emotional experience?

Seems to be universality of expression Seems to be some universality of appraisal-emotion relations BUT this universality in potential may not reflect emotional experience in day to day life

Anger vs. Fear

Self reported or manipulated Fear = higher risk estimate Self reported or manipulated Anger = lower risk estimate Fear resulted in more conciliatory policy endorsement whereas anger resulted in more vengeful policy choices NEGATIVE EMOTIONS HAVE DISTINCT IMPACTS ON JUDGMENT. Emotions matter, not just valence.

Zajonc: the classic What were his major points

Separate and partially independent systems Output from affect system precedes in time the sorts of cognitive operations commonly assumed to be the basis of affective judgments Broad view of affective process -emotions but also evaluations, etc "In order to consider this possibility, it is important to distinguish between thoughts and feelings" p 154 even though in nearly all cases, they co-occur - distinguish between what is TYPICAL and what is POSSIBLE the fact that cognitions can produce feelings does not mean they are necessary

BIG take home message of Zajonc and Naqvi

So, emotional processing may precede and be partially independent from cognition Appears crucial for ability to make decisions, because an 'emotional simulation' appears partly necessary for any decision, and for accurate decisions that are too conceptually complex to reason through So, how need affect FOR decision making. But how does affect bias decision making?

Inconsistent evidence associated with physiological separability

Some can be distinguished well autonomically (Levenson et al: directed facial actions -such as wrinkle your nose, raise your upper lip and stick your tongue out slightly -then measured autonomics: HR, GSR, finger temp. could distinguish anger, fear, disgust, sadness and happiness), Does not always replicate Some distinguished by frontal hemisphere (left approach vs right avoidance) but not specific emotions (e.g., anger and happiness look similar, as do sadness and fear). Some distinguished chemically (oxytocin vs cortisol) others not. Many distinguished facially - but some not (is there a specific facial patterning for love?) Probably, specific physiological patterning if combine information across somatic, autonomic, neural, and hormonal responses -but no one has yet done this (and in truth, would not be a high value study).

Gazzaniga

Split brain example demonstration of the Schachter and singer process, with one caveat. RH received fear stimulus - autonomic response felt but not fully understood by LH. BUT - not like "outside observer" (some specificity to physiological signal) -she KNEW she was anxious, and misatttributed the source to the experimenter and the room.

Ortony & Turner

Strong componentialists. And an excellent example of how to think about and refine theory The assert NO strong evidence for BEs because Emotion researchers can't agree what they are (although some agreement across everyone's sets -anger, happiness, sadness, fear included in all) More importantly, researchers have different definitions of "basic" and thus are asking quite different questions (best contribution of the paper): Basic level of concepts, categories Biological primitives -hardwired and universal Psychological primitives - not irreducible, can be combined to create new (non-basic) emotions

Schwarz & Clore Study 3

Subjective feeling state a valid source of information for some judgments, and is used when judgment is evaluative, global, unfamiliar, and/ or has little personal relevance. More importantly, gave subjective experience a role beyond merely biasing cognitive components of judgment.

James hypothesis

There should be common evolutionary elictors of emotions that are relatively inescapable

James - where did emotions come from

They evolved they are functional they are almost fixed action patterns or reflexes "When the hen sees a white oval object on the ground, she cannot leave it; she must keep upon it and return to it, until at last its transformation into a little mass of moving chirping down elicits from her machinery an entirely new set of performances. The love of man for woman, or of the human mother for her babe, our wrath at snakes and our fear of precipices, may all be described similarly, as instances of the way in which peculiarly conformed pieces of the world's furniture will fatally call forth most particular mental and bodily reactions, in advance of, and often in direct opposition to, the verdict of our deliberate reason concerning them. " Said that other emotional elicitors may be generalized to new circumstances <e.g. stage-fright> Because knowing other people held me in ill-will will dredge up evolutionarily instilled fears <for our ancestors, that may have meant being killed> e.g. some locks and keys - food:joy; bad weather:sadness; large animals:fear; etc.

Schachter and Singer 1962

Two factor theory of emotion Tried to reconcile James and Arnold Thought first part of an emotional response was that events elicit an undifferentiated physiological arousal (a signal that is felt) Arousal then channeled into specific emotional response based on interpretation of situation -AS IF WE WERE OUTSIDE OBERVER Injected participants with epinephrine and told them arousal side effects or not. Placed them with a happy or angry confederate. Showed if unexplained arousal, will get emotion appropriate to the situation. Though their specific study was never successfully replicated-the notion of misattribution of arousal/anxiety certainly was

Cultural tendencies and emphasis/importance

US and Netherlands value disengaged contexts- more pos emotions in contexts of ind achievement, Turkish and Japanese value engaged context, more positive emotions in social relationships Ifaluk - devalue expressions of high positive emotion/happiness (ker), place importance on experience of empathy love/compassion (fago)

Oatley & Johnson Laired Possible hybrid appraisal model

Unconscious and automatic appraisal of situation that immediately results in a specific emotion signal (happy, sad, angry, fearful, disgust, etc). Differs from Schachter & Singer in specificity - as such is a better explanation for split brain example This "signal" then evokes thoughtful secondary appraisal processes, which "tunes" the emotion. Process: EVENT -> EMOTION SIGNAL -> APPRAISAL ->EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE Bonus points if you noticed this sounds a little like Weiner

Most appraisal research

Vignettes that vary in appraisal dimensions are given, participants are asked which emotion would be experienced (e.g., something bad happens and its someone else's fault vs your own - anger vs guilt), or vice versa Autobiographical memory - recall specific emotions, self-report appraisal dimensions on questionnaires From these two primary methodologies, appraisalists consistently argue a causal linkage - but one can really only conclude that emotional experience and appraisals covary - could be commonsense understanding and not underlying cause of emotions

Nezlek 2008

What about day to day life Experience sampling study 9 beeps per day chose what they were feeling (joy, love, anger, guilt, fear, sadness) and what "theme" was the best fit. . .then researchers correlated them Significant correlations Anger - other blame guilt - self blame fear - threat sadness - loss love - positive encounter

Affect Infusion Model: Forgas puts it all together

When and how? When will affect infuse judgments to be congruent? LOW infusion (low influence of affect) Direct access (well practiced or highly accessible evaluation) - judgment unimpacted by current mood Motivated processing (in service to a goal)- information search guided by motive rather than mood HIGH infusion (high influence of affect) Low personal relevance and low motivated processes, and/or low cognitive capacity - direct impact of mood on judgment (feelings as information) Substantive, complex judgments requiring complex construction with no reason for motivated processing: affect biases the information used to construct the judgment in a mood congruent fashion

Markus & Kitayama 1991

appropriate targets of anger differ, if ind close is ok; if int, anger targets are outgroups

Parrot & Harre 1996

argued for embarrassment as cultural performance, draw distinction between emotions as real feeling states versus as social tools or displays. Social context and culture will determine what and how we display, and therefore the emotions in the culture But, embarrassment actually seems to have some universal display features, weakening that argument (e.g., blushing, averted gaze, etc

Mineka

biologically prepared stimuli get almost instant learning of vicarious fear (snakes vs flowers in captive born chimpanzees who have seen neither)

Zajonc: the classic Who was he addressing

cog appraisal folks <post-cognitive, considerable cognitive operations - think back to Lazarus "all emotion arises from appraisal" > And attitude researcher who were all about analysis of arguments and facts or features in forming attitudes And impression formation folks who say we weight and average <or add> traits

Classic example of the principle of anithesis

dog dominance and submission. But you can also think of the "friendly" eyebrow rise (human universal friendly greeting discussed in your text) as the opposite of lowering your eyebrows in anger

Dualism of expression

emotional expressions as both symptom of emotion (universal), and symbolic communication of emotion (in this way can be culturally moderated).

Ovejero 2000

emotions are social constructs - if thinking creates emotion, then the historical and cultural context matters most The Ilongot's tribe "liget" ; Japanese "amae" examples of culturally rooted emotions, and both central to experience Romantic and maternal love both reveal historical differences -historical documents appear to show that parents didn't appear to universally deeply grieve the loss of a child until Victorian times -your book covers the romantic love debate Counterargument for grief: this could reflect appropriate expression rather than underlying experience) Counterargument for romantic love as a European 12th century invention: this idea, while popular, has been mostly resoundingly debunked (Song of Songs anyone? Plus anthropologists document components of romantic love in almost all cultures).

Ohman

even subliminal fear conditioning to biologically prepared stimuli. Also, when supraliminal impervious to conscious rationality (e.g., persists even after removal of shock electrodes)

Haidt's hypnotic disgust

induced disgust to word take vs often (manipulation check with cookies supports this). Presented moral vignettes with these words (counterbalanced) and found disgust inducing word prompted both more disgust and more immorality judgments - but not more negative judgments in general (e.g., showing applicability)

Hypothesis and support of James' bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is emotion

lack of autonomic feedback should reduce emotional experience

Controversial area of James' theory

logic dictated that emotional sensations arose from some mental interpretation of an event as having an emotional meaning <ooh scary bear> but James said it was the opposite. the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the [p.190] same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Basically, he said we see the bear, have an instinctive physiological reaction and that reaction is one and the same with the emotion - it is perceived and labeled as emotion. Without the physiology then - there is no emotion. Emotion is fundamentally embodied. The bodily sensations are necessary for the feeling to exist. Can't abstract it to its simple cognition. Derive a hypothesis?

service associated habits

movements which are serviceable in gratifying some desire, or in relieving some sensation, if often repeated, become so habitual that they are performed, whether or not of any service, whenever the same desire or sensation is felt, even in a very weak degree Because they are servicable associated habits, expressions may be similar across animals and humans, and deinitely similar across all humans

universality

not just across humans, but potential continuum of emotional experience across species. Obvious difficulties in measurement in non-humans (esp. non primates) but recent advances in neuroscience have allowed us to explore potential similarities in emotional experience by looking at neural responses as well as hormonal responses. When they are similar in humans and non-humans (e.g., amygdala activation to threat, oxytocin release upon perception of "loved one"), rule of parsimony requires assumption of commonality

Basic emotion proponents

organize emotions to a universally shared basic set of emotion families fear joy sadness anger disgut love suprise Important as a core definitional debate as well as in terms of understanding emotional experience

Darwin James studied using

physiological measures (especially autonomic/cardiovascular, sometimes somatic/muscular) as well as with decoding of facial expression. Self reports of experience not seen as sufficient basis for studying emotion.

Darwin - three central tenets

service associated habits principle of anithesis direction action

If basic emotions exist...

they will guide the study of the emotion system and thus our understanding of emotional experience in humans (e.g., they may tell us about the function of the emotion system, as well as universal physiological and psychological processes across the species) If BEs exist in a way that is different from nonBEs (e.g., Schaudenfreude) , that also fundamentally implies a distinction between emotion and other types of cognition

Why anithesis

two possibiliities Two possibilities "Natural" opposition, relief of one leads to opposite action Communicative value: Distinct and opposite gestures would be more easily perceived/understood by conspecifics. Remember, Darwin believed emotional expression was universal human language

Implications of Darwinian view for emotion researchers

universality functionality focus on dualism of experience