Homework Review Participants given either an injection of epinephrine (which increases heart rate)...

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

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


Decoder

Encoder

Sender Receiver

Speech

Prosody

Expression

Body Lang.

EEG

Decoding

AffectiveState

AffectiveState

Signal


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)


Question: If Encoding ≠ Decodingwhat are implications for affective computing?

≠

Signal

Encoder

Sender

Attend to User

Smile

Nod

Recline

Extend Leg

Warm – Agreeable

Gifford (1994)



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



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


• 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


• 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.


• 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


• 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)


• 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 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.


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


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

Homework Review Participants given either an injection of epinephrine (which increases heart rate)...

Documents

Transcript of Homework Review Participants given either an injection of epinephrine (which increases heart rate)...