IS EMOTIONS
WHAT AN EMOTION?
William James (1884)
UNCLEAR!
Many answersthough no real consensus
and numerous issues with the answers
BASIC PROPERTIES OF EMOTIONS
Brief
Signaled through
face, touch, voice
Specific Cause
Helps achieve goals
TYPES OF EMOTIONS
Primary
appraisal:
first basic judgment of
whether an event is
good or bad for the
person
If good, approach (the
positive emotions)
If bad, avoid (the
negative emotions)
WHAT ABOUT SPECIFIC EMOTIONS?
Paul
Ekman
Founding figure in the
study of emotions
Brought an evolutionary
perspective to emotions
(heavily inspired by
Darwin)
Studied universality of
basic emotion expression
EKMANS BASIC EMOTIONS
DECODING BASIC EMOTIONS
Ekman
traveled to
Papua New Guinea
Showed the Fore (tribe
from highlands) six
basic faces
High rates of
identifying
corresponding
emotion
ISSUES?
Book covers criticisms (and responses) of study design
What about the specific
emotions? What are the
issues there?
ISSUES WITH EKMAN BASIC EMOTIONS
Only
1 positive emotion?
Are these really the emotions people
see as basic?
What are the properties of these
emotions?
ANOTHER APPROACH TO THE
QUESTION OF BASIC EMOTIONS
Prototype
approach to
emotions
Prototypes and
Categorization
Categories that dont
have clear boundaries;
rather, examples are
either better or worse
representations of the
prototype of the overall
category
PROTOTYPES OF EMOTIONS
Shaver
and colleagues had people rate over 200
emotion words
1 = I would never call this an emotion
4 = I would definitely call this an emotion
Examples: anger, hate, fear, love, rage, joy,
gladness, regret, pride, ferocity, alarm, eagerness,
power, aversion, forgiveness, discomfort, rejection,
rapture, isolation, uneasiness
Through this approach, aimed to evaluate which
emotion terms are most prototypically emotions to
laypeople
PREDICTIONS ABOUT MOST
PROTOTYPICAL EMOTIONS?
MOST PROTOTYPICAL EMOTIONS
Emotion Term
Mean Rating
Love
3.94
Anger
3.90
Hate
3.84
Depression
3.83
Fear
3.83
Jealousy
3.81
Happiness
3.77
Passion
3.75
Affection
3.72
Sadness
3.68
Grief
3.65
Rage
3.64
WHAT ABOUT BASIC EMOTIONS?
Shaver
and colleagues then selected the
135 most prototypic emotion terms
Put each term on a separate index card
Gave all 135 cards to new participants
Asked them to put emotion terms that
go togethermake as few or as many
piles they like
Ekmans Emotions
Prototype Emotions
Joy
Joy
Sadness
Sadness
Anger
Anger
Fear
Fear
Surprise
Surprise
Disgust
Love
APPROACHES TO EMOTIONS
Ekman and Prototype
approaches are discrete
approaches to emotions
Love
Fear
Joy
There are also dimensional
approaches to emotions
Anger
DISCRETE APPROACHES
Provides
insights into how specific
emotions differ
Specific emotions as a response to
specific situations
Problem with discrete approaches?
Little to say about similarities
across emotions
DIMENSIONAL APPROACHES
Core
dimensions of appraisal, when
combined, give rise to specific emotions
SMITH AND ELLSWORTH (1985) MODEL
Dimension
Description
Attention
degree to which you focus on and think about the
stimulus
Certainty
degree to which you are certain about what is going to
happen
Control coping
extent to which you have control over outcomes in the
environment
Pleasantness
degree that the event is positive or negative
Perceived obstacles
extent to which the pursuit of your goal is blocked
Responsibility
extent to which other people, you, and situational
factors are responsible for event
Legitimacy
extent to which the event is fair and deserved or unfair
and undeserved
Anticipated effort
extent to which you must expend energy to respond to
the events
USING DIMENSIONAL APPROACH
Interest
increased pleasantness
the desire to attend
the sense that
situational factors are
producing events
a perceived need to
expend effort
moderate certainty
about future outcomes
little sense of obstacles
or illegitimacy of events
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN EMOTIONS
USING DIMENSIONAL APPROACH
Anger
Sadness
Guilt
Agency (combination of control and responsibility)
Blaming others produces anger
Believing that the situation is responsible produces sadness
Self-blame leads to guilt
SUMMARY
Emotions tend be (a) brief, (b) caused by specific events,
(c) have non-verbal signature, (d) goal-directed
Primary appraisal: is the event good (positive emotions)
or bad (negative emotions)?
Basic emotions? Two different answers (though there
are others)
Ekman: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Surprise, Anger, and Disgust
Prototype: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Surprise, Anger, and Love
Approaches to Emotions
Discrete approaches: view emotions as separate, distinct
entities
Dimensional approaches: different emotions are a result of
different combinations of values on appraisal dimensions
UNIVERSALITY VERSUS
CULTURAL VARIABILITY
Really evolutionary views versus
social-constructivist views of
emotions
AREA OF AGREEMENT
Emotions are solutions to basic problems
of social living
AREA OF DISAGREEMENT
Evolutionary framework: emotions are genetically
encoded biological processes that emerged in evolution
as adaptations to problems or opportunities specific to
the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.
Emotions are species-characteristic patterns of action and
therefore universal
Constructionist framework: emotions are words,
concepts, representations, and metaphors.
Emotions are forms of discourse that emerge within
culturally specific institutions
Emotions reflect culturally specific concerns about identity,
morality, and social structure
PUT ANOTHER WAY
Emotions in DNA?
Emotions a result
of culture?
AS WITH VIRTUALLY ALL SUCH QUESTIONS
IN PSYCHOLOGY
Evidence supports both views
FOUR WAYS TO VIEW THE DEBATE
Potential
Versus Practice
Prototypes
Focal
and Variations
Emotions within Cultures
Idealization
POTENTIAL VERSUS PRACTICE
Evolutionists
focus on potential of emotions
Questions are about controlled, in the lab ability
Given a highly controlled stimulus, do people of
different cultures show similar experiences,
expressions, and physiological responses?
POTENTIAL VERSUS PRACTICE
Constructivists
focus on practice
How do emotions arise, and how are they
experienced and expressed in daily living?
POTENTIAL VERSUS PRACTICE
At
the most abstract level, the appraised
antecedents of emotion are similar across cultures
Example: Ekman studies of emotion displays
Cultural variations in occurs with specific events
that trigger emotions that vary by culture
Example:
In East Asian societies, anger is thought to be highly
muted.
In the Ifaluk, anger is a highly public, dramatized
display
PROTOTYPES AND VARIATIONS
Emotion
have both central and peripheral
features
Central features: reliably occur with an
experience of a specific emotion
Peripheral features: less systematically
occur with the emotion
PROTOTYPES AND VARIATIONS
Display
of anger
Central: furrowed brow, glare, and tightened
and pressed lips
Peripheral: tightened lower eyelid
PROTOTYPES AND VARIATIONS
Display
of embarrassment
Central: gaze down, head turns and
movements down, and controlled smile
Peripheral: face touches, head shakes, and
shoulder shrugs
PROTOTYPES AND VARIATIONS
Evidence
suggests that
central traits of
emotions are universal
Peripheral traits are
more culturally
variable
FOCAL EMOTIONS WITHIN CULTURES
Cultures
vary in which
emotions are focal
(emotions that are often
experienced)
Example: Cultures that
emphasize honor (such
as Spain), emotions
associated with honor
(shame, anger) are more
focal
IDEALIZATION
Cultures
idealize different emotions
IDEALIZATION
In
the West, emotions
such as excitement
and enthusiasm are
highly valued
In the East, emotions
such as contentedness
and modesty are
more valued
SUMMARY
Emotions
can be seen as both universal and
highly cultural variable depending on how you
look at it
People seem to share the potential to
experience the same emotions, but in practice
they do not
Central features of emotions are more universal,
while peripheral features are more variable
Cultures vary in the emotions they focus on and
the emotions the idealize
LOVE: A CASE STUDY OF
AN EMOTION
A FEW INITIAL POINTS
Love
the most prototypical emotion?
Shaver et al 1987 suggests yes!
Received little focus until the 1970s
Leave it to the poets and novelists
WHAT IS LOVE?
ANSWERS FROM PSYCHOLOGISTS
Little
agreement!
Emotion?
Motivation?
Action tendency?
Attitude?
WHAT WEVE LEARNED ABOUT LOVE
Romantic
Love is a world-wide phenomenon
WHAT WEVE LEARNED ABOUT LOVE
Highly
variable across people and cultures
TYPES OF ROMANTIC LOVE
Many
different typologies
developed over the years
Passionate versus
companionate
Triangular Theory of
Love
Love Styles
PASSIONATE AND COMPANIONATE LOVE
Passionate:
intense,
emotion-filled state of
desire for another
Companionate:
deep
affection for another
person with whom ones
life is interconnected
TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE
Infatuation
Intimacy
Companionate
Romantic
Consummate
Passion
Infatuation
Commitment
Fatuous
Empty
LOVE STYLES
Eros:
passionate/intense love
Storge: friendship-based love
Ludus: love as a game
Agape: selfless style
Pragma: pragmatic love
Mania: love alternating between
ecstasy and agony
LESSONS FROM DIFFERENT TYPOLOGIES
OF LOVE?
Many
different ways to categorize
romantic love
Love can have high levels of passion, but it
need not be
Little agreement on the different flavors
of romantic love
UNIVERSALITY VERSUS
CULTURAL VARIABILITY IN
LOVE
EVOLUTIONARY TAKE ON LOVE
Love
as solutions to
problems
Like other emotions, love
is functional
EVOLUTIONARY TAKE ON LOVE
Passionate
love solves the attraction problem by
motivating individuals to enter monogamous
relationships
EVOLUTIONARY TAKE ON LOVE
Companionate love can be seen as solving the commitment
problem in intimate relationships: Maintaining the
relationship in the face of other attractive alternatives
CONSTRUCTIVISTS TAKE ON LOVE
Love
varies culturally in many ways
CONSTRUCTIVISTS TAKE ON LOVE
Individuals
with an East Asian background
see love as more friendship-oriented than
do their Western counterparts
CONSTRUCTIVISTS TAKE ON LOVE
50%
of Indian
participants were willing
to marry without love
Only 2% of the Japanese
participants and 4% of
the North American
participants were willing
to do the same
CONSTRUCTIVISTS TAKE ON LOVE
Highly
individualistic
people tend to report
lower rates of falling in
love than do more
collectivistic people
Western countries = More
individualistic
Eastern countries = More
collectivistic
CONSTRUCTIVISTS TAKE ON LOVE
What matters when falling in love?
North Americans
Appearance
Familiarity
Readiness
Similarity
Chinese
Reciprocal liking
Personality
Filling needs
Social Influence
ANSWERING DIFFERENCE QUESTIONS
Evolutionary
approaches
try to answer why love
exists in general
Constructivist
approaches try to tackle
how love varies across
cultures
WHAT ARE THE
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH
ON LOVE?
ONE MAJOR ISSUE
Virtually
all
research is on
romantic love
But is there
more?
PROTOTYPE STUDIES OF LOVE
First
studies (1988): Focused on
features of love
Second studies (1991): Focused on
different types of love
FEATURES OF LOVEFREE LISTED
Feature
% of Subjects Free Listed
Caring
44%
Happiness
29%
Want to be with other
28%
Friendship
23%
Feel free to talk about anything
20%
Warm other feelings
17%
Accept the way s/he is
16%
Trust
15%
Commitment
14%
Sharing
14%
Think about the other all the time
14%
FEATURES OF LOVEPROTOTYPE RATINGS
Feature
Mean Ratings
Trust
7.5
Caring
7.3
Honesty
7.2
Friendship
7.1
Respect
7.0
Concern for the others well-being
7.0
Loyalty
7.0
Commitment
7.0
Accept other the way s/he is
6.8
Supportiveness
6.8
Want to be with the other
6.8
FEATURES OF LOVE
When
asked to list
features of love,
concepts such as caring,
happiness, wanting to be
with other, and friendship
arose most frequently
More passion related
concepts were listed far
less often
TYPES OF LOVEFREE LISTING
Feature
# of Subjects
Free Listed
Feature
# of Subjects
Free Listed
Friendship
51
Lust
14
Sexual
25
Infatuation
13
Parental
23
Of pets
10
Brotherly
22
Physical
10
Sibling
22
True
10
Maternal
20
Emotional
9
Passionate
19
Platonic
9
Romantic
19
Respectful
9
Familial
18
Sisterly
9
Puppy
18
Everlasting
8
Paternal
17
Of life
8
TYPES OF LOVEPROTOTYPE RATINGS
Feature
Mean Ratings
Feature
Mean Ratings
Maternal
5.39
Spiritual love
4.27
Parental
5.22
Passionate love
4.00
Friendship
4.96
Platonic love
3.98
Sisterly
4.84
Self-love
3.79
Romantic
4.76
Sexual love
3.76
Brotherly
4.74
Patriotic love
3.21
Familial
4.74
Love of work
3.14
Sibling
4.73
Puppy love
2.98
Affection
4.60
Infatuation
2.42
Committed
4.47
Love for humanity
4.42
TYPES OF LOVE
Many
types of love!
Types of love dealing with people
(parents, siblings, friends, romantic
partners) were most listed and rated as
most prototypical
Many other types of love (of pets, self
love, of humanity) were also listed
BASIC PROPERTIES OF EMOTIONS
Brief
Signaled through
face, touch, voice
Specific Cause
Helps achieve goals
DOES LOVE FIT OUR DEFINITION OF
AN EMOTION?
Is love brief?
Hopefully not!
Specific causes?
Yes
Signaled through face, touch, voice?
Maybebut certainly different types
of love signaled differently
Helps achieve goals
Likely, though much more research is
necessary to figure out those goals
TAKE HOME LESSONS
No
great answer to the starting question:
What is an emotion?
TAKE HOME LESSONS
Most
prototypical emotion (love) fails the
requirement of what is an emotion!?!?
TAKE HOME LESSONS
Great
complexity within specific emotions
that still needs to be investigated
TAKE HOME LESSONS
Emerging
literature on positive emotions
20 years ago, it was all just happiness!
MORALITY
TWO VIEWS
Emmanuel
Kant
Morality is driven by
reason; emotions are
secondary
David
Hume
Morality is driven by
emotions; reason is
secondary
WHICH VIEW MAKES
MOST SENSE?
KANTS VIEW: LAWRENCE KOHLBERG
AND STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Kants
view held court
until 1990s
Lawrence Kohlberg
studied the development
of moral reasoning with
children
Two Central Tenets
Reasons guides morality
Morals are universal
KOHLBERGS MORAL DILEMMAS
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of
cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save
her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town
had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but
the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to
make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a
small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went
to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get
together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the
druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper
or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the
drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got
desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for
his wife. Should the husband have done that?
KOHLBERGS MORAL DILEMMAS
Asked
these dilemmas to children of
various ages
Not important whether the child say
yes or no
What was important was the
reasoning behind it
MORAL STAGES
Level
1: Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment
Orientation.
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange.
Level II: Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.
Level III: Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.
Stage 6. Universal Principles.
Stage 1: Obedience and
Punishment Orientation
Children obey rules of
authorities (usually parents)
unquestioningly
For Heinz: Typical responses
are "It's against the law," or
"It's bad to steal, making no
other consideration
Stage 2: Individualism and
Exchange
Children recognize there is
not just one right or wrong
view
Everything is relativeso
each person is free to
pursue their interest
But fair exchange acts as
an overarching guide.
For Heinz: Children stated,
Heinz might think its
right to take the drug, the
druggist would not.
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal
Relationships
Children
believe that
individuals should act in
good ways, live up to the
expectations of the
community
Good behavior is
conceptualized as
prosociality: motivated
to care for others and
feel associated emotions
(love, empathy, trust)
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal
Relationships
For
Heinz: Children
suggest that Heinz was
in the right to steal the
medicine since "He was
a good man for
wanting to save her,"
and "His intentions
were good, that of
saving the life of
someone he loves."
Stage 4: Maintaining the Social
Order.
Stage
3 works best with
two-person situations
In stage 4, being a good
person is generalized to
society as a whole
Stage 4: Maintaining the Social
Order.
Done through obeying laws,
respecting authority, and
acting in accordance with
promoting social order
For Heinz: People
understand that Heinz
motives were good, but he
still violated the law. If
everyone broke the law
every time there was a good
reason, there would be
chaos.
Stage 5: Social Contract and
Individual Rights
The
question of what
makes a good society
comes into focus
People step away from
their own societies to
consider what rights
and values should
societies uphold
Stage 5: Social Contract and
Individual Rights
Believe a good society is best
conceived as a social contract
in which people freely enter
to work toward the benefit of
all members of society
Believe all rational people
should agree on two points:
All people want protection
of basic rightsliberty and
life
All people want
democratic procedures for
changing unfair laws
Stage 5: Social Contract and
Individual Rights
For
Heinz: Respondents
indicate they dont
normally support
breaking laws, but that
the wifes right to live is
a moral right that must
be protected
STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
At
this stage, people
emphasize the
universality of
principles such as
justice
Require principles to be
applied equally
Actions should be taken
with justice for all
considered
STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
For Heinz: All parties
druggist, Heinz, and his
wifetake the perspective of
the other to consider what is
most fair.
If the druggist did this, the
reasoning goes, he would see
that life must take priority
over property and thus agree
that the wifes life must be
saved
ISSUES WITH
KOHLBERGS MODEL?
THREE BIG ISSUES
No
role for emotions?
Only morality about harm and
fairnesswhat about other questions
of morality?
Morality really universal (i.e. the
same) across societies?
EMOTIONS ENTER
MORALITY
KANTS TIME: JONATHAN HAIDT AND
SOCIAL INTUITIONIST THEORY
Emotions
research and
evolutionary theory
increasingly prominent
players in social psychology
Haidts (2001) models
central claim:
Emotions guide moral
judgment
Reason justifies the
decision after it has
been made
SOCIAL INTUITIONIST THEORY
Emotions
are the
judge: they make the
decisions
Reason
is the lawyer:
it builds the case for
why a decision has
been made
EVIDENCE FOR EMOTIONAL
PRIMACY IN MORAL JUDGMENT
PEOPLE MAKE QUICK JUDGMENTS OF OTHERS
Diverse areas of study have shown that people make
quick, intuitive judgments about social objects
Such judgments are often driven by emotions
MORAL JUDGMENTS AND THE BRAIN
Greene and colleagues (2001)
showed people different
moral dilemmas in an fMRI
scanner
Example: A train is speeding
toward 5 people trapped on a
footbridge. You can save them
by pushing a fat man in the
path of the train, thus using
his life to save 5 others. Would
you do this?
MORAL JUDGMENTS AND THE BRAIN
Peoples emotional centers of the brain (ventromedial
prefrontal cortex and amygdala) are highly active when
reasoning about such dilemmas
PSYCHOPATHS HAVE EMOTIONAL DEFICITS
Less
than 1% of the
population are
psychopaths, yet they
commit more than 50%
of the most serious
crimes
Psychopathy is seen as a
moral emotions deficit
PSYCHOPATHS HAVE EMOTIONAL DEFICITS
Reduced
VMPFC,
amygdala, insula activity
(decreased
emotionality)
Have emotions but
difficulty caring about
the fates of other
people
THE UNEXPLAINABLE MORAL JUDGMENT
A
man purchases a dead chicken at the
market. Once he returns home, he has sex
with it. Afterwards, he cleans it, cooks it,
and enjoys it for dinner.
THE UNEXPLAINABLE MORAL JUDGMENT
Sally
and Mark are brother and sister. They
are traveling through Europe one summer
after college. One night on the trip, they
both agree it would be interesting and fun to
try making love. Sally is already using birth
control, but to be extra safe, Mark wears a
condom. They both enjoy the experience,
but decide to not do it againto keep the
night a special memory between the two of
them.
THE UNEXPLAINABLE MORAL JUDGMENT
Many
people respond
that such acts are
immoral
When pressed for why,
many fail to provide
good rationale for their
judgment
MORALITY ACROSS CULTURES
MORE THAN JUST FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE?
Five
Moral Foundations
Harm/care
Fairness/reciprocity
Ingroup/loyalty
Authority/respect
Purity/sanctity
HARM/CARE
Focuses
on kindness, gentleness, and nurturance
Promotes care and prevents harm
Fairness/Reciprocity
Focuses
on justice, rights, and autonomy
Ingroup/Loyalty
Focuses
on patriotism and sacrifice for the group
Authority/Respect
Focuses
on respecting elders, authority figures,
and traditions
Purity/Sanctity
Views
the body as sacred and an entity that
should be respected and not defiled.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN FOUNDATIONS
Cultures can emphasize
each moral foundation to
varying degrees (if at all!)
Example: Domain of
authority/respect very
important in East Asian
societies, but less
emphasized in Western
Societies
ISSUES WITH EMOTIONS
FOCUSED, CULTURALLY-SENSITIVE
APPROACH TO MORALITY?
CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
Models exist that recognize value of both reason and
emotion
Example: Joshua Greenes dual systems models
Much of the theory behind the Social Intuitionist
Theory and Moral Foundations Theory is predicated
on evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology remains highly
controversial within the field
Cross-cultural work on morality within psychology is
still lacking
RIDDLE!
You
have 100 coins
10 are TAILS up
90 are HEADS up
Without looking, how can you make two piles of
coins that have equal number of coins facing
TAILS up.
Piles dont need to be equal
You cannot feel the coin faces
You cannot look at the coins until you are
done
No probabilitymust be 100% sure the two
piles have equal number of coins TAILS up