Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
The problem. Psychologically plausible ways of
The problem Psychologically plausible ways of differentiating emotions from one another and from non-emotions Why care? Emotion theorists: Better understanding of causes and consequences Clinicians: Better prospects for diagnosis and treatment Modelers: Better KR models for reasoning, better artificial characters for simulations, games, (social) robotics
2
Other affective states/conditions
BUT What is an emotion? What isn’t an emotion? Other affective states/conditions Moods? Traits? Preferences?
3
How do we “get at” emotions?
Where to start? How do we “get at” emotions? A typical (but neglected) Cognitive Science problem
4
Culture? Anthropology/psychology
What should we look at? Language? Linguistics Culture? Anthropology/psychology The real world? Anthropology/psychology Self-reports? Social Psychology Faces? Anthropology/psychology Bodily changes? Physiology Behavior? Behavioral Psychology Individuals? Personality Psychology Animal models? Animal Psychology Interacting Processes? Artificial Intelligence
5
How can we identify the things we want to study?
How do we “get at” emotions? How can we identify the things we want to study? Language seems like obvious starting point?
6
But in any given language, which words refer to emotions?
English > 2000 candidates Difficult to properly sample emotion space e.g. Russell’s (1980) circumplex model
7
? The model proposes two orthogonal dimensions: (un)pleasantness or valence, and activation, arousal, or intensity Examples of problems: 1. In the model, angry is as similar to afraid as to annoyed, even though angry and afraid are quite different emotions. Makes no sense.
8
angry and annoyed are qualitatively similar, angry and afraid are not
intense angry and annoyed are qualitatively similar, angry and afraid are not lost in a circumplex representation afraid angry annoyed unpleasant
9
Examples of problems: 2. anger is less intense than afraid, but more unpleasant Makes no sense
10
anger is less intense than afraid, but more unpleasant.
model loses important information afraid angry annoyed unpleasant
11
Problem partly due to taking too simplistic approach
Probably, intensity dimension should be potency Probably, need a third dimension for intensity Problem of calibration of intensity.
12
Further evidence that intensity dimension isn’t intensity
Direct intensity ratings show “anger” is more intense than “afraid” (Frijda, Ortony, Sonnemans, & Clore,1992)
13
Mean typical value for “anger” 7.3
14
Mean typical value for “afraid” 6.3
16
emotions words mapping problem
Language? emotions words mapping problem In any language, which words refer to emotions? Different emotions-to-lexical-item mappings: 1. one many (anger emotion 19 lexical items) 2. one one (relief emotion) 3. one none (“fears confirmed” emotion)
17
Starting with words is a problem
Criteria for sampling items? Many are not emotions words Confounds words referring to different emotion types (anger vs fear) with words referring to same type but with different intensity (anger vs annoyed) Garbage in, garbage out Conclusion that emotions vary in valence and intensity neither interesting or informative
18
A linguistic approach to determining the referents of words in the affective lexicon
If words like “sleepy,” “droopy,” “violent,” and “abandoned” don’t refer to emotions, we shouldn’t use them or expect a theory to account for them How can we tell to what an affective word refers? we need a theory, and we need to test it
19
conditions internal external non-mental mental cognition focal
subjective evaluations e.g., sexy objective evaluations e.g., abandoned non-mental mental physical and bodily states e.g., aroused, tired cognition focal affect focal behavior focal affective states such e.g., happy, sad affective-behavioral conditions e.g., cheerful, glum affective-cognitive conditions e.g., encouraged behavioral-cognitive conditions e.g., careful cognitive conditions e.g., certain
20
A linguistic approach to determining the referents of words in the affective lexicon
Test the theory: Linguistic context: “being x” vs. “feeling x” “feeling x” adds affect that simply “being x” might not have, so x might seem emotional even when it isn’t
21
Linguistic analysis “feeling x” = to experience the feelings typically associated with being x the feelings typically associated with being x = the emotions one has when one believes that one is x, and one cares that one is x “feeling abandoned” adds affect that simply “being abandoned” does not have, so abandoned seems emotional even though it isn’t
22
Linguistic judgment data
(Ortony, Clore, & Foss,1987) To what degree do you think “feeling x” refers to an emotion ? To what degree do you think “being x” refers to an emotion ? For good examples of emotions, there should be no difference Discriminant analyses confirmed eight distinct patterns of scale values
23
conditions internal external non-mental mental cognition focal
subjective evaluations e.g., sexy objective evaluations e.g., abandoned non-mental mental physical and bodily states e.g., aroused, tired cognition focal affect focal behavior focal affective states such e.g., happy, sad affective-behavioral conditions e.g., cheerful, glum affective-cognitive conditions e.g., encouraged behavioral-cognitive conditions e.g., careful cognitive conditions e.g., certain
24
An empirical criterion for what words refer to emotions
non-mental internal external mental conditions affect focal behavior focal cognition focal physical and bodily states e.g., aroused, tired subjective evaluations e.g., sexy objective evaluations e.g., abandoned cognitive conditions e.g., certain behavioral-cognitive conditions e.g., careful affective-cognitive conditions e.g., encouraged affective-behavioral conditions e.g., cheerful, glum affective states such e.g., happy, sad An empirical criterion for what words refer to emotions Some examples better than others better examples worse examples
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.