Homework Review
• Participants given either an injection of epinephrine (which increases heart rate) or a placebo (salt water)
• Participants were next assigned to ‘happy condition’ (silly tasks) or ‘angry condition’ (annoying tasks)
• Result: Participants receiving epinephrine reported – more happiness, happy behaviors in ‘happy condition’
compared to those receiving the placebo. – more anger, angry behaviors in ‘angry condition’ compared
with those receiving the placebo.
“Additive” Interpretation
AmuseAnnoyAnnoyed
Negative Positive
HighArousal
LowArousal
Amused
“Additive” Interpretation
AmuseAnnoyDrug Drug
Angry
Negative Positive
HighArousal
LowArousal
Happy
Schacter & Singer• Claim we don't automatically know when we are
happy, angry. Instead, we label our emotions by considering situational cues. This labeling process depends on two factors:– something in world triggers general, nonspecific arousal
marked by increased heart rate, tightening of the stomach, and rapid breathing.
– people examine perceptual cues and their thoughts about the situation for clues for what has caused the emotion.
• Essentially 2 factor model– Appraisal a purely cognitive process that provides context
for interpreting body state
“Emotion” Elicitor
Model
BIS/BAS
MentalState
Elicitor
Emotion
Model
MentalState
Elicitor
Emotion
Model
Discrete
Dimensional Appraisal
Another exampleDutton & P. Aron had male participants walk across either a scary (arousing) or safe suspension bridge. At the end of each bridge an attractive female experimenter met the participants, gave them a survey and a number to call if they had any other further questions.
Men who walked across the scary bridge were most likely to call the woman for a date
CRITICISMS:Many failures to replicate original Schacter & Singer experiment
Vague with regard to role of cognitive mechanism
Ecological validity: Most situations the arousal comes from the situation. So may be true but only part of the story
Social Emotions
• New experiment
Decision-Making Task 3 (Fall10b).lnk
Emotion influences your demains
Celso M. de Melo, Peter Carnevale & Jonathan Gratch
• No main effect of Modality (p=.383>.05)– Participants don’t concede differently, when collapsing across modalities
• Main effect of Emotion (p<.01)– People concede more to the angry agent than the control agent– People concede less to the happy agent than the control agent
• No interaction between Emotion and Modality (p=.550>.05)– Suggests emotion is having same impact independently of modality
Why?
Social Emotions
Discuss view that emotions arise from and influence social interactions and relationships– Framework for analyzing emotional “transmissions”– Controversies about origins of emotional behavior– Function of emotional signals– Social appraisal theory
Emotional communication• Commonsense view:
– Something leads a person to experience an emotion
– Emotion alters the senders behavior
– Observers notice and interpret this behavior
– This interpretation changes the observer’s behavior
Anger Fear
Transmission model
Shannon-Weaver (1947) Transmission Model of Communication
SAD
MAD
Transmission model• Basic transmission questions
– What “message” is being encoded/decoded• Basic emotion (Fear, Hope, Joy)• Appraisal (Uncertainty, Goal Congruence)• Broad dimensions of affect (valence, arousal)
– How is the message encoded into behavior • what features are diagnostic of true emotional state?
– How is message decoded• What features to people use to infer emotion?• Are they any good at it? Are they the correct features
• Secondary social questions– Why was message generated
• True emotion?• Strategic concerns?
– How does it impact observer behavior?
Sender Receiver
Brunswik’s Lens Model
AffectiveState
InferredAffective
State
Behavior
Agent
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
Signal
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding MismatchBrunswik’s Lens Model
Sender
InduceAffective
State
Receiver
Decoding
Check if state
“Received”
Encoder
Sender Receiver
Speech
Prosody
Expression
Body Lang.
EEG
Decoding
AffectiveState
AffectiveState
Signal
Brunswik’s Lens Model
Decoder
Encoder
Sender Receiver
Speech
Prosody
Expression
Body Lang.
EEG
Decoding
AffectiveState
AffectiveState
Signal
Brunswik’s Lens Model
Decoder
Encoding ModelEncoding Model Decoding ModelDecoding Model
=
Naturalistic Example
• Can you decode this
Evidence for transmission model of Emotion
• ENCODING
• Is “true emotion” encoded into body movements?– Evidence mixed (Russell et al 03, Feldman-Barrett)– No consensus that “Emotion” is encoded– More consensus that “core affect” is encoded
• Facial & vocal changes coordinated w/ sender valence and arousal
Decoding: People think they can do it well
• Emotions are complex and dynamic
• This actually matters significantly for the observer
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
Signal
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding MismatchHow would we test?
Encoder
Sender
Warm – Agreeable
Gifford (1994)
Encoder
Sender
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
Warm – Agreeable
Signal
Gifford (1994)
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding Mismatch
Some affective messages reliably encoded
Receiver
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
DecodingDecoder
InferredWarmth
Signal
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding MismatchBut not always reliably decoded
ReceiverSignal
Encoder
Sender
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
DecodingDecoder
Warm – Agreeable
InferredWarmth
Gifford (1994)
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding MismatchEncoding/Decoding Mismatch
≠
Evidence for transmission model of Emotion
• DECODING • Is “true emotion” decoded
– Evidence mixed– Most people can infer something of the sender’s psychological
state • Voice: arousal, not valence (high confusion between happy/angry)• Face: valence and arousal• Smiles universally recognized across cultures, not much else• Decoding depends on context, gender of sender, receivers
emotional state*But what do psychologists know about signal processing
ReceiverSignal
Encoder
Sender
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
DecodingDecoder
Warm – Agreeable
InferredWarmth
Gifford (1994)
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding Mismatch
Question: If Encoding ≠ Decodingwhat are implications for affective computing?
≠
Signal
Encoder
Sender
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
Warm – Agreeable
Gifford (1994)
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding Mismatch
Question: If Encoding ≠ Decodingwhat are implications for affective computing?
Suggests that people attend to wrong cues
Maybe computers could do better at detection?
Maybe computers could inform or teach people to do better
ReceiverSignal
Attend to User
Smile
Nod
Recline
Extend Leg
DecodingDecoder
InferredWarmth
Challenge for Detection:Encoding/Decoding Mismatch
Question: If Encoding ≠ Decodingwhat are implications for affective computing?
Suggests that people attend to wrong cues
Maybe computers should give people what they want
Use displays that meet user expectations
Some evidence that this is what actors do
Returning to people:Do we have to abandon lens model?
• One explanation: No but it’s complicated– People express true emotion but are motivated
to mask their displays for social reasons
– Ekman’s Display rules
– If you look close enough, you’ll see evidence of the true emotion (Microexpressions)
“Leakage view”• Is “true emotion” encoded into body movements?
Alternative explanations:
• Transmission model fine– BUT message isn’t about emotion
• People don’t reveal true emotion
• People attempt to influence others
• Emotional displays are strategic messages
Social Intention view• Fridlund
– It is evolutionarily stupid to reveal true feelings• Gives others too much information
• We often need to cheat, lie, seal
– Little evidence for direct mapping between emotion and display• Many to 1: Laugher produced by humor, anger anxiety, self-deprecation,
attention, appeasement, sexual interest
• 1 to Many: Ekman and Friesen78 identify 65 anger displays
• Disassociation: – Happiness neither necessary nor sufficient for smiling (Kraut&Johnson79)
– Surprise not correlated with “surprise” display (Reisenzein)
– Emotional displays vary depending on the social context• Tend to smile more when someone watching
– Emotional displays are strategically deployed• Show distress when someone that could help us is near
• Break?
Social Functional view of emotion
• Emotion plays crucial interpersonal function to facilitate coordinated activities: e.g. conversation
– Hypothesizes people are social by nature and survive through relationships (Lutz&White, 1986).
– Hypothesizes emotion is a feeling system:
• Provides intrinsic rewards for cooperation• Provides intrinsic punishments for non-cooperation
– Hypothesizes emotion is a display system
• Automatic and rapid means of communicating mental state• Facilitates detection of cheaters
– Hypothesizes tight coupling between feeling and display
• You display what you feel
• Point of contrast with social intentions views
(Keltner & Haidt 99; Levenson; Isard; Frank)
Social function of felt emotion
Social function of felt emotion
• Provides information about social encounters– Informs self about quality of the interaction (Keltner&Haidt99; Clore05)
• Anger: fairness of events
• Love: level of commitment to another
• Shame: lowered social status
Social function of felt emotion
• Provides information about social encounters
• Prepares the body for social responses– Prepares response to social contingencies– Eg: Anger (Keltner & Haidt 99)
• Shifts blood from internal organs towards the hands and arms
• Heightens sensitivity to injustices of others which presumably
Thereby facilitates responses to threat or injustice.
Social function of felt emotion
• Provides information about social encounters
• Prepares the body for social responses
• Motivates formation of group bonds, loyalty, identity– Trusting others feels good
• Acts of trust correlated with elevated levels of oxytocin, same chemical released during breast-feeding (Zak, 2004)
– Harming others feels bad• Anticipatory guilt and shame and help enforce social rules (Barrett
1995, Izard et all 98)
– Discrepancies between felt emotion and other’s responses stimulates development of perspective-taking (Dunn95), theory of mind (Harris89), self (Eder90)
Social function of displayed emotion
Social function of displayed emotion
• Elicits adaptive social responses from others– Anger
• Elicits fear-related responses (even subliminal presentation) (Dimberg&Ohman96)
• Serves as demand for someone to change course of interaction (Emde, Gaensbaur&Harmon76)
• Diverts blame or averts someone else’s anger or disapproval (cf. Biglan et al., 1985; Clark, Pataki and Carver, 1996).
– Distress elicits sympathy (Eisenberg et al89)
– Joy foster social interaction (Haviland&Lelwica87)
Social function of displayed emotion
• Elicits adaptive social responses from others
• Transmit coordinating information (Spoor&Kelly04, Parkinson01)
e.g. social referencing
– Beliefs, desires & intentions– Appraisals: desirability, control, expectedness– Orientations towards the relationship (dominant/submissive)
– Not strictly a transmission modelCan emerge through dyadic interaction.
• Eg. antagonism may develop as facial expressions and bodily postures are exchanged: One person’s leaning forward leads to withdrawal until ground is held. (Parkinson 2001)
Social function of displayed emotion
Social Emotional displays in PrimatesFrom de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved.
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
• Emotions motivate dialogue toward shared meaning– Seek social support (Carver, Weintraub, & Scheier, 1989; Stober,
2004; Dukel-Schetter, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1987)
– As part of a need to “search for meaning” (Luminet, et al.,
2000; Rimé, Mesquita, Philippot, & Boca, 1992) – As part of a “reality negotiation” to mitigate the
negative impact of a possible transgression, through the use of excuses (Snyder, 1989; Snyder & Higgins, 1997)
Conversational function
(act on world) (act on self)
Emotion
CopingStrategyCopingStrategy
ActionTendencies “Affect”
PhysiologicalResponse
Problem-Focused Emotion-Focused
EnvironmentGoals/Beliefs/
Intentions
Theoretical Framework: Appraisal Theory (Arnold, Lazarus, Frijda, Scherer, Ortony et al.)
Desirable
Expected
Controllable
Blame
Appraisal Appraisal
Past Present Future
Goal:Establish trustUtility: 50
Action:Agent DefectsCause: SelfIntend: yesProbability: 100%
Appraisal Desirability: -50 Likelihood: 100% Causal Attribution: SelfEmotion: Guilt(50)
Inhibits
How does an agent know what to feel?
Threatens
Past Present Future
Goal:Establish trustUtility: 50
Action:Agent DefectsCause: SelfIntend: yesProbability: 100%
Appraisal Desirability: -50 Likelihood: 100% Causal Attribution: SelfEmotion: Guilt(50)
Inhibits
And how do these “feelings” influence people?
Threatens
Hareli, S. and Hess, U. What emotional reactions can tell us about the nature of others: An appraisal perspective on person perception. Cognition & Emotion 24 (2010), 1, 128 — 140
“Reverse Appraisal”
Hypotheses:
– Meaning of expression is context-dependent (requires reverse appraisal)
It doesn’t matter that they smile, it matters what smile communicates about person-environment relationships
Expression interpretation depends on action and (unobservable) goals
To test:
– Use appraisal theory to generate expressions of a ‘confederate’
– See if people accurately “decode” this meaning (via reverse appraisal)
– See if people predictably alter their behavior based on recovered meaning
Testing reverse appraisal
Created game-playing agent:Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
Multi-issue bargaining
From appraisal theory: Give different agents different goals– e.g., “cooperative” agent has goal to foster joint reward
– Appraise state of game
– Display emotions consistent with goals
Assess effect (if any) on human behavior
Social Effects of Agent Emotions
Cooperative vs. Individualistic
Individualistic agentAgents express similar emotions but elicited under
different contexts
Shows joy when agent defects on human
(51 participants, within-subjects design)
Play 25 rounds IPD for chance at $100
Participants believe they are playing against computer
Also explore several agent appearances
Predict greater cooperation with cooperative agent
Experiment 1: Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
ExpressionPolicy
“Cooperative”agent
“Individualistic”Agent
Agent AgentCooperate Defect Cooperate Defect
Coop Joy Guilt Coop Neutral Joy
Def Anger Sad Def Sad SadHu
ma
n
Hu
ma
n
Same expressions, only difference is situation in which they are evoked (consistent with different appraisals)
Example interaction: Iterated prisoner’s dilemma
Results: 2 (expression-policy) x 3 (appearance) design: 51 participants
“Cooperative” emotions– Enhance cooperation– Enhance perceptions of trust
“Competitive” emotions – Increase perceptions of dominance– Lower perceptions of trust
Identical expression has different effects depending on situation in which it is evoked
– i.e., contingent meaning
Real World Example (Golden Balls)
Step Back a second
“Emotion” Elicitor
Model
BIS/BAS
MentalState
Elicitor
Emotion
Model
MentalState
Elicitor
Emotion
Model
Discrete
Dimensional Appraisal
MentalState
World
Emotion
ModelR
WHAT IS SOCICAL FUNCTION OF EMOTION: Psychological Model
General consensus:Models suggest some relationship (correlational or causal between• Mental state (beliefs, desires, intentions)• The world (actions, other actors)• Emotion (including behavior)
But what good is this• Challenges• Methodology
MS W
E
ModelR
Psychological Model
MS W
E
ModelF
Folk Model
ModelR ≈ ModelF
?
Distinction that may be important: “real” vs. “naïve” model
Accurately reflects how emotion really happens or is displayed (i.e., encoding)
Accurately reflects how people THINK emotion really happens or is displayed (i.e., decoding)
MS World
Emotion?
ModelR
Infer emotional reaction:If know Goals and Action: guess response • Facial expression• Risky decision• Run away
MS? World
Emotion
ModelR
MS World?
Emotion
ModelR
Infer mental stateIf know Response, Action, guess goals• cooperative vs. competitive• Low reservation price
Infer unobservable actionsIf know goals and reaction, guess action• Lion in the grass
INFERENCE: Enabling AGENT inferences about HUMAN(Can do this regardless of assumptions about causality: correlation sufficient)
MS World
Emotion?
ModelFInfer emotional reaction• Facial expression• Risky decision• Run away
MS? World
Emotion
ModelF
MS World?
Emotion
ModelF
Infer mental state• cooperative vs. competitive• Low reservation price
Infer unobservable actions• Lion in the grass
INFERENCE: Enabling HUMAN inferences about AGENT
Influence MS via emotion- sad induction leads to belief that hill is high
SOCIAL PREDICTION: Form AGENT expectations over future HUMAN beh.
InduceSadness
Mahler
MS(t) W(t)
E(t)
ModelR
∆MS(t+1) W(t+1)
∆E(t+1)
ModelR
SOCIAL PREDICTION: Form HUMAN expectations over future AGENT beh.
Influence MS via emotion- sad induction leads to belief that hill is high
SOCIAL PREDICTION: Form AGENT expectations over future HUMAN beh.
InduceSadness
Mahler
MS(t) W(t)
E(t)
ModelR
∆MS(t+1) W(t+1)
∆E(t+1)
ModelR
MS W
Emotion
ModelRInfluence human emotion via MS-tell human “I cheated” to provoke anger
MS W
Emotion
ModelR
SOCIAL ACTION : Facilitate agent control over human emotion(here causality matters)
Influence human emotion via W-hit human to provoke anger
speech act or Expression
Action in world
Influence MS via emotion- sad induction leads to belief that hill is high
SOCIAL ACTION: Facilitate agent control over human MS via Emotion
MS World
Emotion
ModelR
InduceSadness
MS(t+1) World
Emotion
ModelRInfluence their action (get them to take risky choice by anger induction
Model Function: Facilitate agent control over human Action
Mahler
InduceAnger
SOCIAL ACTION: Construct emotional plans
MS W
E
ModelR
MS W
Sad
ModelR
MS Give Up
Sad
ModelR
SOCIAL ACTION: Facilitate human control over agent
Challenges
Need the model– which way do the arrows point– do we need more boxes
– This determines reliability and scope of explanation prediction control
Top Related