Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
emotions_models [2010-12-07 07:01] – rula.sayaf | emotions_models [2010-12-09 06:58] (current) – rula.sayaf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Many theories discuss how emotions are elicited in our cognitive system. Discrete Emotions theories (Ekman, 1992; LeDoux, 1996; Öhman & Wiens, 2004) argue that emotions are a set of sensory-motor programs; each of these programs consists of a brain circuit linking eliciting cognitions and somatic responses into a single neural system. While Dimension theories (e.g., Russell, 2003) argue that emotions are cognitive labels to physiological activation, which are characterized in terms of broad bipolar dimensions such as valence and arousal (e.g. I feel negative arousal in a context where I’ve been wronged, therefore I must be angry) Invalid source specified.. In the 1980s Appraisal Theories became a major perspective for emotions studies. | Many theories discuss how emotions are elicited in our cognitive system. Discrete Emotions theories (Ekman, 1992; LeDoux, 1996; Öhman & Wiens, 2004) argue that emotions are a set of sensory-motor programs; each of these programs consists of a brain circuit linking eliciting cognitions and somatic responses into a single neural system. While Dimension theories (e.g., Russell, 2003) argue that emotions are cognitive labels to physiological activation, which are characterized in terms of broad bipolar dimensions such as valence and arousal (e.g. I feel negative arousal in a context where I’ve been wronged, therefore I must be angry) Invalid source specified.. In the 1980s Appraisal Theories became a major perspective for emotions studies. | ||
- | ====Emotions Theories==== | + | ===Emotions Theories=== |
- | It essential to review the history of proposed theories when studying emotions models. The work of (Moors, 2009) reviews many theories mentioned | + | It essential to review the history of proposed theories when studying emotions models. The work of (Moors, 2009) reviews many theories mentioned |
- | - James’ Theory (1890) argues that a stimulus activates bodily response, the experience and feed back of this response produces the emotional response and experience. The intensity and type of emotion relies on the intensity and type of bodily response. Nevertheless, | + | |
- | - Schachter (1964) considered Cannon’s criticism and stated that a stimulus causes a physiological arousal. This arousal is cognitively mapped to the corresponding emotional experience and its type while the intensity of the arousal defines the intensity of the emotion. In this theory, emotional experience is equated to feeling just like in James’. | + | ==James’ Theory (1890)== |
- | - Appraisal Theories: studies | + | It argues that a stimulus activates bodily response, the experience and feed back of this response produces the emotional response and experience. The intensity and type of emotion relies on the intensity and type of bodily response. Nevertheless, |
+ | |||
+ | ==Schachter (1964)== | ||
+ | This theory | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Appraisal Theories== | ||
+ | Studies | ||
Appraisal theories propose multi-mode for the functioning and processing of appraisal. This model relies on rule-based mechanisms that compute variables and combine them to elicit appropriate emotions, and associative mechanisms (e.g. Clore & Ortony, 2000;) that retrieve previous pervious appraisal patterns. | Appraisal theories propose multi-mode for the functioning and processing of appraisal. This model relies on rule-based mechanisms that compute variables and combine them to elicit appropriate emotions, and associative mechanisms (e.g. Clore & Ortony, 2000;) that retrieve previous pervious appraisal patterns. | ||
- | - Network theories: consider associative methods in emotion elicitations as those theories relate to semantic network models and memories (e.g., Berkowitz, 1990; Bower, 1981; Lang, 1985; Leventhal, 1980, 1984). When an emotional experience is evoked, the stimuli, actions, goals and responses are saved in the memory in a specific schema network for each emotion. Every time a stimulus is encountered, | + | |
+ | ==Network theories== | ||
+ | These theories | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Affect Program theory== | ||
+ | Emotions generation involves processes of stimulus evaluation, which is the focus of appraisal theories, and then translating the evaluation into emotion and consequences, | ||
+ | There is a list of evidences for this theory from which we mention: | ||
+ | - Neurological evidence for specialized emotion neural circuits (Panksepp, 1998, 2000) | ||
+ | - Existence of emotion specific responses, which are also universal (Ekman, 1972) | ||
+ | It is note-worthy that this theory is compatible with the theories previously mentioned. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Barrett’s Conceptual Act theory== | ||
+ | Barrett (2006b) builds her theory on Russell’s (2003) who argues against the notion that basic emotions are building blocks of emotional life, and he states that emotional variables of valence and arousal are the building blocks. These variables are properties of stimuli, neurophysiological states and of conscious experience. The combination of these variables is called “affective quality” which causes a state called “core affect”. Specific emotions are in this case the categorization of core affect, which are not naturally given rather they socially emerge. Barrett agrees with Russell that emotions are not natural and that stimuli elicit core affect. Barrett states that categorization of core affect is a form of perception that helps shaping the emotional experience. This categorization is affected by previous conceptual knowledge and thus she uses the term conceptual act to denote it. Category representation knowledge is perceptual because it has sensory features, embodied as its activation simulates previous instances of the same category, and situated according to contexts. Emotion categories are essential part of emotional experience in this theory, while in appraisal theories emotion category is a consequent of emotional experience. Like theories of James (1890) and Schachter (1964), this theory equate emotion with emotional experience and hence could be also called feeling theory. | ||
===Appraisal Theories=== | ===Appraisal Theories=== | ||
Line 78: | Line 97: | ||
This example is used in building virtual characters and avatars to treat patients with social phobia. These avatars will evoke the undesired symptoms in the patient (like being negative and aggressive toward the speaking patient). Once these symptoms are identified, the patient is treated wit the appropriate therapeutic interventions (e.g., cognitive restructuring, | This example is used in building virtual characters and avatars to treat patients with social phobia. These avatars will evoke the undesired symptoms in the patient (like being negative and aggressive toward the speaking patient). Once these symptoms are identified, the patient is treated wit the appropriate therapeutic interventions (e.g., cognitive restructuring, | ||
+ | ===Emotions are Social=== | ||
+ | As we have seen before, emotions are personal cognitive appraisals that follow personal interests, goals and perspectives. Parkinson(Parkinson, | ||
+ | Supporting the previous discussion about importance of one agent to have an understanding of other agents’ emotional models and situations, we see that emotions are looked at like a contagious affect. Each other’s emotions and moods socially affect people. Non-verbal communication affect others and hence result in non-verbal reactions and hence emotions. Emotions affection shows for example in couples (Gottman, 1979) where communication of negative or positive emotions from one party affects the other party. This effect seems to be automatic rather than being reasoned and thought about. Again this point reconfirms the necessity of one agent to automatically consider other agent’s emotions to react accordingly. | ||
+ | Interpersonal Function of Emotions | ||
+ | Emotions expression conveys the value of an appraised object or event. The reason behind that is probably to achieve interpersonal effect by making such emotional claims (Parkinson, 1996). Chapman (1983) examined children watching cartoon; a child laughed more when he was alone and two children laughed more than a group. This study shows the interpersonal effect on facilitating or inhibiting emotional expression. | ||
+ | Emotions are Communicative | ||
+ | Parkinson categorizes the interpersonal messages of each core theme emotion that appraisal theories characterize in the below table. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Emotion+++++++++Core relational theme++++++++++++++++++++++Communicative Agenda | ||
+ | Anger+++++++++++Other-blame++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Take me seriously and give me the respect I deserve! | ||
+ | Fear++++++++++++Danger+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Help/ | ||
+ | Guilt+++++++++++Self-blame+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Forgive me! | ||
- | ===Bibliography=== | + | Happiness+++++++Success+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Let’s celebrate! |
+ | |||
+ | Hope+++++++++++ Potential for success++++++++++++++++++++Let’s keep on trying! | ||
+ | |||
+ | Love+++++++++++ Desiring or participating in affection+++Be/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sadness+++++++++++Irrevocable loss++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Comfort/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pride+++++++++++Enhancement of ego identity by taking credit for an achievement+++++++++++Adjust your opinion of me upwards in accordance with my achievement! | ||
+ | |||
+ | This categorization is promising if applied in emotional model of artificial agents. If an agent is able to comprehend the message of another agent implied via the latter’s emotional expression, then the interaction would reach a high level of sophistication between agents on the one hand and agents and humans on the other hand. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ====Bibliography==== | ||
Öhman, , A., and S. Wiens. "The concept of an evolved fear module and cognitive theories of anxiety." | Öhman, , A., and S. Wiens. "The concept of an evolved fear module and cognitive theories of anxiety." | ||
+ | |||
Aitken, P. P. " | Aitken, P. P. " | ||
Bartneck, Christoph. " | Bartneck, Christoph. " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Barrett, L. F. (2006b). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 10, 20-46. | ||
+ | |||
Ekman, P. "An argument for basic emotions." | Ekman, P. "An argument for basic emotions." | ||
+ | |||
Elliott, C. "The affective reasoner: A process model of emotions in a multi-agent system (Ph.D Dissertation No. 32). ." Northwestern, | Elliott, C. "The affective reasoner: A process model of emotions in a multi-agent system (Ph.D Dissertation No. 32). ." Northwestern, | ||
+ | |||
Gratch, Jonathan, Stacy Marsella, and Paolo Petta. " | Gratch, Jonathan, Stacy Marsella, and Paolo Petta. " | ||
Hudlicka, Eva. "A Computational Model of Emotion and Personality: | Hudlicka, Eva. "A Computational Model of Emotion and Personality: | ||
+ | |||
Hudlicka, Eva. " | Hudlicka, Eva. " | ||
+ | |||
Hudlicka, Eva. "This time with feeling: Integrated Model of Trait and State Effects on Cognition and Behavior." | Hudlicka, Eva. "This time with feeling: Integrated Model of Trait and State Effects on Cognition and Behavior." | ||
+ | |||
Kuppens, P., I. Van Mechelen, and D. J. M. Smits. "The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, | Kuppens, P., I. Van Mechelen, and D. J. M. Smits. "The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, | ||
+ | |||
Lazarus, R. S. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. | Lazarus, R. S. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. | ||
+ | |||
Lazarus, R. S. " | Lazarus, R. S. " | ||
+ | |||
LeDoux, J. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996. | LeDoux, J. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996. | ||
+ | |||
Roseman, I. J. "A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications." | Roseman, I. J. "A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications." | ||
+ | |||
Roseman, I. J., and C. A. Smith. " | Roseman, I. J., and C. A. Smith. " | ||
+ | |||
Scherer, K. R. " | Scherer, K. R. " | ||
+ | |||
Scherer, K. R. "On the sequential nature of appraisal processes: Indirect evidence from a recognition task." In Cognition and Emotion, 13, 763–793. 1999. | Scherer, K. R. "On the sequential nature of appraisal processes: Indirect evidence from a recognition task." In Cognition and Emotion, 13, 763–793. 1999. | ||
+ | |||
Silvia, P. J. " | Silvia, P. J. " | ||
- | Smith, C. A., and L. D. Kirby. " | ||
+ | Smith, C. A., and L. D. Kirby. " | ||