Affect and emotion cvh


Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Begin by asking students why they think we have emotions? How do you think emotions affect your behavior? How you think? What you do?Technology Tip: The BBC maintains an extensive Happiness website containing articles, online tests, and brief videos (
  • Before we get started, have students try to memorize the names of these students.
  • What are these people’s names?
  • Ok, we’ll come back to this later.
  • Until recently, psychologists and cognitive scientists have spent little effort on the development of complete models of how people process emotional information. This is true even though we know that emotion information prioritizes attention , access to word meaning, and the organization of material in memory. For many scientists, emotion has simply seemed fraught with too many difficulties (from agreeing on a definition to figuring out how to measure it) to be considered as a tractable topic of study.
  • We’re ok at guessing what emotions other people are experiencing by looking at them, right? But if we’re not looking in the mirror, how do we know what emotions we’re experiencing?[Insert pictures of famous expressions of emotions… Mel angry? Nadal winning?]
  • Idea is that each emotion has a unique physiological fingerprint.James-Lange theory of emotionPhysiological arousal precedes emotional experienceWeakness: Physiological expression does not always constitute the same emotionFacial Feedback HypothesisFeedback from face muscles evokes or magnifies emotions
  • Strack, Martin & Stepper (1988). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. If emotions have distinct physiological signatures, then manipulating a person’s physiological state should also affect their emotions, right? Review the Strack et al. study.From the abstract: Hypothesized that people's facial activity influences their affective responses. Two studies were designed to both eliminate methodological problems of earlier experiments and clarify theoretical ambiguities, This was achieved by having subjects hold a pen in their mouth in ways that either inhibited or facilitated the muscles typically associated with smiling without requiring subjects to pose in a smiling face (zygomaticus major or the risorius muscles are used in smiling). Study 1 's results demonstrated the effectiveness of the procedure. Subjects reported more intense humor responses when cartoons were presented under facilitating conditions than under inhibiting conditions that precluded labeling of the facial expression in emotion categories. Study 2 served to further validate the methodology and to answer additional theoretical questions. The results replicated Study 1 's findings and also showed that facial feedback operates on the affective but not on the cognitive component of the humor response. Finally, the results suggested that both inhibitory and facilitatory mechanisms may have contributed to the observed affective responses.
  • Actual scale was 0-9.Ok, so it does appear at least that muscle activity can affect perceptions of humor and how funny you think something is. There’s also research that finds that parapalegics report feeling less intense emotions after they become paralyzed. Which theory do these sorts of findings lend greater support to? Why?Other research:Ekman and colleaguesDocumented the effects of facial expressions on physiological indicators of emotion using 16 participantsReported that a distinctive physiological response pattern emerged for the emotions of fear, sadness, anger, and disgust, whether the participants relived one of their emotional experiences or simply made the corresponding facial expressionResearcher found that both anger and fear accelerate heart rate, but fear produces colder fingers than does anger
  • Notice that both James-Lange and Cannon-Bard do not allow for a cognitive component. But do you think our thoughts influence how we behave? How we feel?Schachter and Singer (1962) argued that emotions do not have unique physiological signatures, but rather that emotions result from the perception of a generalized state of arousal combined with an attribution for the cause of the state. In other words, a person can feel her/his heart beating, palms sweating, and subsequently perceive her/himself as excited or afraid, depending on environmental cues (e.g., a bear vs. a bunch of smiling, happy people at an amusement park). To help students distinguish among these three theories, choose an example – asking someone on a date, getting a grade back from a test, telling a parent you’ve failed a class – and discuss how each theory addresses that situation.
  • From wikipedia: Schachter and Singer (1962)In order to test their theory Schachter and Singer hypothesized that in the absence of an “appropriate explanation” for arousal participants could be manipulated into experiencing an emotion by manipulating aspects of the available “cognitive circumstance.”The experiment was “cast in the framework of a study of the effects of Vitamin supplements on vision.” [3] Researchers told all 184 participants, all male college students, that they would be receiving injections of the vitamin compound “Suproxin.” In reality the injected compound was ½cc of either epinephrine or saline (placebo) solution, creating experimental and control conditions respectively.Secondly, participants who received the epinephrine were assigned to one of three conditions “Informed”, “Ignorant”, and “Misinformed”. In the ”Informed” condition participants were made aware of the injection’s potential side effects (e.g. increased heart rate, shakiness, etc.), thus giving an “appropriate explanation” of arousal.” In the “Ignorant” condition participants were not given any information regarding potential side effects and thus no explanation for arousal. Lastly, in order to control for effects of introspective anxiety in the face of side effects, the “Misinformed” condition participants were made aware of fabricated side effects.The final variable manipulated was the “cognitive circumstance.” Participants were left alone for 20 minutes with paired stooges (blind to participant condition) who were trained to act in either a “euphoric” or “angry” manner.Emotional state was then experimentally measured via one-way mirror assessments (semiprivate index) of the participants’ behavior relative to the stooge. A Likert style scale self-report (public index) addressing participant mood and physical condition was then administered immediately after the experiment.The results of the experiment confirmed Schachter and Singer’s original hypothesis. In both the “euphoric” and “angry” conditions participants in the “Ignorant” and “Misinformed” conditions consistently showed significantly higher scores on both activity indices and self report scales than those in the Informed and Placebo conditions. [3]
  • This is only in the happiness version. The scale is made from two self-report measures. They subtracted self-reported irritation from self-reported happiness.
  • From the article: This is a weighted index which reflects both the nature of the activities in which the subject engaged and the amount of time he was active. The index was devised by assigning the following weights to the subject's activities: 5—hula hooping; 4—shooting with slingshot; 3— paper airplanes; 2—paper basketballs; 1—doodling; 0—does nothing.
  • Show The Bachelor clip as a great example of misattribution of arousal. Now, how can you apply this to your own life? What will you do on your next date? Just make sure there’s not someone else around who your date could misattribute their arousal to!
  • If emotions truly worked as James or Schachter and Singer believed, they would not provide any particular insight into people’s reactions to different behaviors. That is, people would have to conclude their emotion was based on their behavior or attitudes (e.g., if they support a policy to help outgroup members, then they must have a positive emotion associated with the group). In such a scenario, general emotions would only serve as an outcome variable and not the key mechanism by which perceptions of threat influence ingroup and outgroup attitudes. Whereas James, and Schachter and Singer understood emotions as endpoints, contemporary psychologists tend to conceptualize emotions as affecting behavioral intentions and coordinating social interactions (Oatley & Jenkins, 1992). Functionalist frameworks address why humans have emotions, assuming that each emotion serves a specific function(s) in motivating behavior. That is, emotions organize the many different responses humans have for any given situation—such as attention, learning, memory, regulatory variables, motivational priorities—so that the final response is coordinated and directed toward a relevant goal (Cosmides & Tooby, 2000; Levenson, 1999; Oatley & Jenkins, 1992). Often influenced by evolutionary theory, some functionalist theorists argue that emotions evolved by natural selection to help regulate behavior so that our hunter-gatherer ancestors could successfully address adaptive obstacles (Cosmides & Tooby; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).
  • Have students get into small groups and try to come up with what the purpose is for each of the four emotions. What function do they serve in our lives? How do they affect how you think and behave?We’re just focusing on these four emotions for now. You can probably think of functions for many other emotions (like shame, guilt).For fear, think about how once you get scared in an ally or somewhere dark, every noise seems loud and suspicious. It’s hard to think about other things, right? And it’s unpleasant. You want to end that feeling by getting away.Ask students to generate examples of present-day world, national, local, or campus events that seem influenced by anger. Is anger helpful or hurtful in each instance?
  • We’re just focusing on these four emotions for now. You can probably think of functions for many other emotions (like shame, guilt).For fear, think about how once you get scared in an ally or somewhere dark, every noise seems loud and suspicious. It’s hard to think about other things, right? And it’s unpleasant. You want to end that feeling by getting away.Ask students to generate examples of present-day world, national, local, or campus events that seem influenced by anger. Is anger helpful or hurtful in each instance?Perceived reaction to someone else’s wrongdoingGreater anger accompaniesMore harm the other person doesOther’s behavior viewed as random or arbitraryOther’s behavior viewed as cruelEmotional response to real or imagined threat or provocationAngry people Downplay risks and overlook dangersAre impulsive and fail to consider consequences of actions
  • Functional approaches are all about what purpose emotions serve. What consequences do they have. So they’re really the best at explaining why emotions do have certain consequences. One of the things you may have noticed from your own descriptions and the ones I just reviewed is that emotions give you information about the environment. One theoretical approach to emotions focuses on just that: what kinds of information emotions conveys to the person.Affect-as-information hypothesis the idea that people judge something as good or bad by asking themselves “How do I feel about it?”Think about knowing you like a person. That might be partially because the feelings of pleasantness or fun you feel when you’re around that person.The idea is that if you don’t discount the emotion as irrelevant, it can transfer to the attitude object. So maybe you think you like this person b/c you always see them in a really fun class or situation. Maybe you love salsa dancing and you always see this person at salsa class. So you’re always happy and having fun around them. As long as you don’t attribute the good feelings to the fact that you just like dancing, you may think you like the person.
  • The second experiment was in more of a natural setting. They conducted phone interviews in a 2x3 experiment with the following conditions:1. Sunny vs Rainy Day2. Indirect priming: The subjects were asked "Hows the weather there" before asking happiness questions.3. Direct priming: The subjects were told the study was to measure the effects of weather on mood.4. No-priming: No weather questions were asked.ResultsClearly, people felt happier on sunny days than rainy days. Again, the priming conditions improved happiness on rainy days (by misattribution) but had no effect on sunny days. 
  • Indirect prime: How’s the weather today?Direct Prime: This study is about how weather affects mood.It looks like ppl took the opportunity to discount their negative mood when they had a readily available alternative explanation. But they didn’t explain away their positive mood. Why not?People are more motivated to seek explanations for negative moods than for positive moods.
  • People in a bad mood tried to explain their feelings in terms of the situation and so they could discount their bad moods as reasonable sources of information about how they felt about their life in general. Discounting was strong enough the the bad event/tense ppl were about the same as the no mood condition.Control condition was 5.5
  • Which four of these people do you prefer?
  • Most people choose Ellen, Martin, Tony and Linda -- after all, they recognize their familiar faces. There is no logical reason why these four people should be any more trusting, likable or friendly than others. But in a small way they are no longer strangers. So, other things being equal, people prefer them. How many times have you gravitated towards people you know even a little at parties where everyone else is a stranger? The mere exposure effect.
  • The exposure effect (also known as the mere exposure effect) is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. Insocial psychology, this effect is sometimes called the familiarity principle. In studies of interpersonal attraction, the more often a person is seen by someone, the more pleasing and likeable that person appears to be.Could this explain the otherwise inexplicable popularity of Kesha? Not that I want to equate Morgan Freeman with Kesha. He’s awesome. But he is in a ton of movies. Maybe that’s why I like him so much.
  • Illustration of mere exposure effect. The more participants were exposed to Turkish words or Chinese symbols, the more positive they thought the words were later (when guessing whether the “adjective” was probably good or bad). From Zajonc (1968): The subjects were again told that the experiment dealt with the learning of a foreign language, but now they were not required to pronounce the characters. Nor were they able to pronounce them subvocally. They were simply instructed to pay close attention to the characters whenever they were exposed to them. Following training subjects were told that the characters stood for adjectives, and that their task was to guess their meaning on the good-bad scale.
  • Have a short discussion with students on why this happens.Familiarity usually means safe. Can trust ppl you’ve been around more.Perceptual fluency. Remember how we don’t like to think too much. If we encounter something we’ve seen before, it’s easier to process. And that feels good.Harmon-Jones and Allen. From abstract: Affective models of the mere exposure effect propose that repeatedexposure to a stimulus increases the positive affect or reduces the negative affect toward the stimulus, whereas recent cognitivemodels propose that affect is not involved in the mere exposure effect. To test these competing predictions, participants repeatedly viewed photographs of women’s faces and then viewed these women again (familiar) and novel women (unfamiliar) while facial muscle region activity and brain activity were recorded. Familiar stimuli were rated as more likable and they evoked more zygomatic (cheek) muscle region activity than unfamiliar stimuli. Interactions with individual differences occurred. Persons reporting less positive affect and persons reporting more negative affect at baseline evidenced more zygomatic activity to the familiarthan to the unfamiliar. Persons with relatively less left frontal cortical activation at baseline evidenced a tendency toward a greater mere exposure effect. These results suggest that repeatedly exposing persons to nonreinforced stimuli increases their positive affective reactions to those stimuli.
  • Ask students what they think of this. Have them explain what exactly is wrong with this. Play the devil’s advocate (they will have trouble justifying their positions).How is that that we know something is wrong but we can’t explain why it’s wrong?
  • Insert clip from 30 rock. Season 1, “The Head and the Hair.” 17:00-18:30 (Liz Lemmon goes on a date with a very good looking guy. Right when they are about to kiss in his apartment, she sees a picture of her great aunt. They then discover that they’re 5thcousings)
  • As students for examples of emotions that they think affect moral reasoning, or whether something is right or wrong. Think about the examples we just watched. Think about your own lives.Guilt an unpleasant moral emotion associated with a specific instance in which one has acted badly or wrongly.Shame a moral emotion that, like guilt, involves feeling bad but, unlike guilt, spreads to the whole person.Moral emotion, involves feeling badGuilt focuses on action that is bad or wrongShame spreads to whole personGuilt is constructiveShame is destructiveAccording to Haidt, these are all emotions that guide judgments. Compared to other animals which at least behave and experience physiological reactions consistent with anger, fear, sadness and happiness, humans spend an an awful lot of our emotional lives reacting to social events that do not directly involve us.How do we determine whether emotion is a moral emotion? Haidt says that one of the giveaway features is that the emotion is frequently triggered by disinterested elicitors (or events/people that do not directly affect the self). The other feature is the degree to which the emotion can be seen as prosocial (others or society benefits).He groups moral emotions into two large categories (other condemning or self-conscious) and two smaller families (other suffering and other praising).
  • Review Haidt’s Intuitionist model of moral judgments. This is actually a case where Freud was way ahead of the game. He said that the ego (the reasoning part) was the servant of the id (the emotional, passionate, impulsive side of the self).If you look at this model, it puts emotion before judgment. So if we’re experiencing anger or disgust or any of those moral emotions we just reviewed, it stands to reason that that emotion would affect our judgment. Especially if we don’t discount the source as irrelevant to our judgment. How could we test this? One way is to make ppl make more extreme judgments is to manipulate their emotional state, like the Affect as information studies. How might we manipulate disgust? It seems pretty important for making moral judgments, especially like the ones we reviewed earlier (siblings having sex).
  • From the abstract: How, and for whom, does disgust influence moral judgment? In four experiments participants made moraljudgments while experiencing extraneous feelings of disgust. Disgust was induced in Experiment 1 by exposure to a bad smell, in Experiment 2 by working in a disgusting room, in Experiment 3 by recalling a physically disgusting experience, and in Experiment 4 through a video induction. In each case, the results showed that disgust can increase the severity of moral judgments relative to controls. Experiment 4 found that disgust had adifferent effect on moral judgment than did sadness. In addition, Experiments 2-4 showed that the role of disgust in severity of moral judgments depends on participants’ sensitivity to their own bodily sensations. Taken together, these data indicate the importance—and specificity—of gut feelings in moral judgments.Study 1 had three conditions. 1 they sprayed a trash bag four times and then stuck it in the room about six feet from where the participant sat. In another, they spread it eight times. And the control didn’t not have the smell.DVs: ratings of morality of sibling sex, cousin marriage, and then driving to work when you can easily walk and a production company releasing a morally controversial film (the second two were moral judgments that don’t involve disgust). They did find that the stink bomb produced judgments of more morally wrong behavior than the control. But the scenario type did not moderate this effect.In study 2, they found that this effect held strongest for people who pay a lot of attention to their internal body states (Private Body Consciousness).
  • Ask students which emotions they think cause ppl to rely more/less on stereotypes. Think of their own personal experiences. When you’re feeling happy/sad/angry/anxious, are you more likely to make quick decisions and judgments or to think more carefully about your decision/attitude/judgment?
  • Design: Ps saw message presentation advocating oil drilling of the SW coast of the US with either strong or weak arguments. Ps then answered questions about the video where they were asked to either think about the strength of the arguments (global evaluation) or the different arguments (i.e. how many?) (detail focus). then Ps had happy, neutral, or sad mood induction, and subsequently answered more qs about message.IVs:Mood induction: positive (comedy scene from Saturday Night Live); neutral (scene on wine corking); sad (scene on summer camp for children w/ cancer)Results:sig interaction between mood, argument quality and message-focusPs in good mood were influenced much more by strong arguments than weak arguments in the global-focus condition. no dif for Ps in good mood in detail-focus condition.accessibility of global representations had little effect on Ps in good mood.main effect for mood on cognitive responsesPs in positive mood or neutral mood reported more global thoughts than Ps in negative mood.Conclusionsmessage quality influences people in good moods when it can incorporated as a heuristic cue (i.e. global judgment) that can be used to simplify processingpeople in bad moods engage in systematic processing whether at encoding or recalling. people in bad moods also did not rely on heuristic processing strategies even when it was more accessible (i.e. the global-focus condition)Caveat to these findings: Wegener, Petty and Smith found that happy ppl are willing to process detailed infromation if they think that information will make them happier. Apparently reading about drilling for oil is not very appealing to people.
  • This study was designed to test the effects of happiness on stereotyping. Ostensibly 2 part studyMood induction: write about happy event or yesterday’s events.Ostensibly in part 2 of the study, participants were supposed to make judgments on a student disciplinary hearing.  all subjects received a booklet containing (a) a participants characteristics questionnaire, (b) a case description, (c) a brief questionnaire about the case, and (d) a probe for suspicions about the purpose of the study. Subjects received one of two cases, involving either an allegation of assault (beating up a roommate) or cheating (on a mathematics examination). The identity of the student accused in each case was manipulated so that, for half the subjects, he was identified as a member of a group stereotypically associated with the alleged offense (stereotype condition), whereas for the remainder he was not (no stereotype condition). Specifically, for the case of assault, the student–defendant was given either an obviously Hispanic name (Juan Garcia) or an ethnically nondescript name (John Garner); for the cheating case, in one half of the booklets the target's name was followed by the phrase “a well-known track-and-field athlete on campus,” whereas in the others, this phrase was omitted.  Note that the name didn’t make a difference so they collapsed across conditions. After reading the case, subjects were asked to report the likelihood of the accused student's guilt on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely). 
  • They collapsed across type of crime.They found similar results for other kinds of affect induction: making them smill vs. clench their fists. Making them listen to happy classical music vs. neutral classical music.
  • Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994. Did a series of similar studies to see what other negative emotions affect use of stereotyping. They used the same paradigm with the jocks and peer disciplinary board. Again they varied whether the stereotype was present or absent. Looking at the graph, angry exaggerated the efffects of the steretype (more guilt for jocks, less guilt for nonjocks). It almost seems like the angry participants were looking for a heuristic cue and when they didn’t find one (e.g., jocks), they assumed less guilt.From the abstract. Three experiments were conducted to examine the possibility that different kinds of negative affect (in this case, anger and sadness) can have very different kinds of effects on social information processing. Experiment I showed that angry subjects rendered more stereotypic judgments in a social perception task than did sad subjects, who did not difler from neutral mood subjects. E.uperiments 2 and 3 similarly revealed a greater reliance upon heuristic cues in a persuasion situation among angry subjects. Specifically. their level of agreement with unpopular positions was guided more by the credibility of the person advocating the position. These findings are discussed in terms of the impact of emotional experience on social information processing strategies.
  • To summarize a ton of other studies, it appears that emotions that increase automatic processing and stereotyping are happiness, anger, disgust and surprise. Although remember that ppl will process information more carefully if they’re happy so long as they don’t’ think the information will ruin their good mood. One thing you might notice about the differences between emotions in system 1 and system 2 is that 1 are more associated with certainty and 2 with uncertainty. Sadness doesn’t necessarily fit too much except that for that you know that something is wrong but a certain source or how to fix the problem is probably not known. One thing that’s interesting about anxiety is that although it does seem to increase attention and processing, it doesn’t do so in an unbiased fashion. As we’ve mentioned before when we talked about the functions of emotions, anxiety narrows focus to threat related information. So people may still be influenced by heuristics and stereotypes. They just might make a bigger effort to find support for their stereotypic judgments.
  • Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggest that in independent and interdependent cultures emotions are felt and expressed differently. They differentiate between ego focused emotions, where the individual is the primary referent, and other focused emotions, where the other is the primary referent. Anger, frustration and pride are all examples of ego focused emotions and are more frequently experienced and expressed in independent cultures. Sympathy and shame, on the other hand, are other focused emotions and are more often experienced and expressed in interdependent cultures. Markus and Kitayama cite a variety of research that shows that Americans, as part of independent culture, tend to show ego focused emotions more, feel them more intensely and for a longer period of time. In some interdependent cultures anger, an ego focused emotion, is not shown. Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.In a comparison of American and Japanese undergraduates, Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer, and Wallbott (1988) found that American subjects reported experiencing their emotions longer than did Japanese subjects, even though the two groups agreed in their ordering of which emotions were experienced longest (i.e., joy = sad > anger = guilt > fear = shame = disgust). Americans also reported feeling these emotions more intensely than the Japanese and reported more bodily symptoms (e.g., lump in throat, change in breathing, more expressive reactions, and more verbal reactions) than did the Japanese. Finally, when asked what they would do to cope with the consequences of various emotional events, significantly more of the Japanese students reported that no action was necessary.For those with interdependent selves (composed primarily of relationships with others instead of inner attributes), it may be very important not to have intense experiences of ego-focused emotions, and this may be particularly true for negative emotions like anger. Anger may seriously threaten an interdependent self and thus may be highly dysfunctional. In fact, some anthropologists explicitly challenge the universalist view that all people experience the same negative emotions. Thus, in Tahiti, anger is highly feared, and various anthropological accounts claim that there is no expression of anger in this culture (see Levy, 1973; Solomon, 1984). It is not that these people have learned to inhibit or suppress their “real” anger but that they have learned the importance of attending to others, considering others, and being gentle in all situations, and as a consequence very little anger is elicited. In other words, the social reality is construed and actually constructed in such a way that it does not lend itself to the strong experience, let alone the outburst, of negative ego-focused emotions such as anger. Among the Japanese, there is a similar concern with averting anger and avoiding a disruption of the harmony of the social situation. As a consequence, experiencing anger or receiving anger signals may be relatively rare events. A study by Miyake, Campos, Kagan, and Bradshaw (1986), which compared Japanese and American infants of 11 months of age, provides suggestive evidence for this claim. These investigators showed each infant an interesting toy and paired it with a mother’s vocal expression of joy, anger, or fear. Then they measured the child’s latency to resume locomotion toward the toy after the mother’s utterance. The two groups of infants did not differ in their reactions to expressions of joy or fear. But, after an angry vocal expression of the mother, there was a striking difference between the two groups. The Japanese children resumed locomotion toward the toy after 48 s, American children after only 18 s. It may be that the Japanese children are relatively more traumatized by their mother’s anger expressions because these are such rare events.
  • Affect and emotion cvh

    1. 1. Emotion and Affect
    2. 2. Linda Ellen Martin Tony
    3. 3. Goals for this topic  What are emotions? Affect? Mood?  Theoretical approaches to emotions  Effects of emotions on attitudes and behavior  Affect as information  Mere exposure  Moral emotions  Information processing and stereotyping  Expression of emotion  Cultural differences
    4. 4. _________ _________ __________ ________
    5. 5. Linda Ellen Martin Tony
    6. 6. What is Emotion?  Emotion – conscious evaluative reaction to some event  “Biologically-based patterns of perception, experience, physiology, action and communication” (Keltner & Gross, 1999).  Mood – feeling state not clearly linked to some event  Affect – automatic response that something is good or bad
    7. 7. Theoretical approaches to emotion  James-Lange  Canon-Bard  Shachter and Singer  Functional
    8. 8. Theoretical Approaches  How do we know what emotion we’re experiencing?
    9. 9. How do people experience emotions? First, Think about the last time you were very angry about something. How does it physically feel when you are…Angry?
    10. 10. How do people experience emotions? Now, Think about the last time you were very excited about something. How does it physically feel when you are… excited?
    11. 11. Theoretical Approaches  Physical component: James-Lange theory
    12. 12. James-Lange vs. Bard
    13. 13. Facial Feedback Experiment (Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988)
    14. 14. Results 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 Lips Hand Teeth Humor Ratings
    15. 15. Schachter and Singer
    16. 16. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Happiness - Irritation Self- Report
    17. 17. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Euphoric Behaviors
    18. 18. Misattribution of Arousal Dutton & Aron (1974)  N=45 males, 18-45 years old  Independent variable:  Scary or normal bridge  Dependent variable:  Calls back to female experimenter  TAT for Sexual Content
    19. 19. Misattribution of Arousal 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 TAT Sexual Content 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Called the Female Experimenter Normal bridge Scary bridge
    20. 20. Misattribution of Arousal
    21. 21. Functional Approaches  Why do we have emotions?  Emotions not endpoints.  Motivate behavior  Affect attention, learning, memory, regulatory variables, goal priorities, social interactions
    22. 22. Functional Approaches  What is the purpose of each of these emotions?  Anger  Fear  Happiness  Disgust  Think about how these emotions affect how you think and behave. How do they affect how others behave toward you?
    23. 23. Functions of Emotions  Anger: implies someone has experienced loss/injustice and deserves redress, intimidates, increases intensity of response (sometimes aggression)
    24. 24. Functions of emotions  Fear: interrupts current activity, heightens attention to threatening information, motivates fight/flight response
    25. 25. Functions of emotions  Happiness: communicates that it’s ok for others to approach, activated by gain/reward
    26. 26. Functions of emotions  Disgust: avoid/reject noxious stimulus, protective (sometimes from violations of cultural norms)
    27. 27. Effects of emotions  Affect as Information:  Emotions provide information about the environment.  Should you stop/continue what you’re doing.  Affect transfer and attitude.
    28. 28. Affect as information Schwartz & Clore (1983) •How happy do you feel with your life right now? •How satisfied/dissatisfied to you feel with your life?
    29. 29. Affect as information Schwartz & Clore (1983)  How happy are you with your life? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No Prime Indirect Prime Direct Prime Sunny Day Rainy Day
    30. 30. Affect as information Schwartz & Clore (1983)  Other IVs: Write about a life event that made you feel good/bad.  Attribution manipulation: Other participants have reported this room makes them tense/elated or control condition.  DVs: How happy/satisfied are you with your life right now? (Control = 5.5) Tense No mood Elated Good event 6.5 6.4 6.7 Bad event 6.1 4.1 3.6
    31. 31. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D
    32. 32. D3 A7 B3 C6
    33. 33. Mere exposure  Tendency to develop an emotional preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar.  Frequency of exposure  Songs?  People?
    34. 34. Mere Exposure Zajonc (1986)  Chinese characters, Turkish words  Saw/pronounced 1-25 times 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 1 2 5 10 25 Chinese Nonsense
    35. 35. Mere Exposure  Moreland & Beach (1992): women coming into class; the more they came to class, the more other students liked her
    36. 36. Mere Exposure  Why does this happen?  How might the mere exposure effect be adaptive?
    37. 37. Moral Emotions  Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other.  What do you think about that, was it OK for them to make love?
    38. 38. Moral Emotions  A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.  Is this ok? Why or why not?  A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.  Is this ok? Why or why not?
    39. 39. Moral Emotions 30 Rock
    40. 40. Moral Emotions  What emotions are most relevant for moral judgments?  Anger  Disgust  Guilt/Shame/Embarrassment  Contempt  Sympathy/Compassion
    41. 41. Moral emotions Intuitionist Model Situation Emotion/ Intuition Judgme nt Reasoni ng
    42. 42. Moral Emotions Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan (2008) DV: Severity of moral judgment Moderator variable: Private Body Consciousness
    43. 43. Moral emotions  We base our moral judgments on the gut-level emotional reactions we have to an event/action.  Individual differences in Private Body Self- Consciousness and Disgust Sensitivity
    44. 44. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping  Which emotions do you think make people stereotype more?  Use System 1? Use System 2?
    45. 45. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping  Q: Does mood affect whether you process information heuristically or systematically?  Message: Should it be ok to drill for oil off the SW coast of the U.S.?  IVs: strong vs. weak argument Happy Neutral Sad
    46. 46. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping  Two part study:  Part 1) Happiness induction and control  Part 2) Judgment on student disciplinary court  Case: Allegation of assault or cheating on exam  Manipulation: Stereotype activation: Student is a well- known track-and-field athlete or no mention Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser (1994)
    47. 47. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping
    48. 48. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping 3 4 5 6 7 8 Angry Sad Neutral Guilt Ratings Present Absent Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer (1994)
    49. 49. Emotions, Information Processing and Stereotyping  Emotions that increase System 1  Happiness, Anger, Disgust, Surprise  Emotions that increase System 2  Sadness, Worry/Anxiety
    50. 50. Are Emotions Different Across Cultures?  Six basic emotions  Happiness, surprise, fear, anger, sadness, and disgust  People in many different cultures can identify facial expression of these emotions
    51. 51. Cultural Differences in Emotion  What differences in expression of emotion do you think might exist across cultures?
    52. 52. Cultural Differences in Emotion  Asian Americans place greater emphasis on emotional moderation than European Americans  Presence of Duchenne smiles
    53. 53. Cultural Differences in Emotion  Collectivist cultural emotion based more on assessment of social worth, outer world, self-other relationships (e.g., sympathy, shame)  Individualistic: more ego focused emotions; more intense and longer- lasting emotions  Cultural difference in amount of concealment of emotion
    54. 54. Summary  Emotional experience influenced by physiology and cognitive appraisals.  Different theoretical approaches  Emotions serve important functions  Comprise powerful and important feedback  Guide thinking and learning  Decisions, social judgments Promote belongingness  Cultural differences in expression