Lecture 6: Emotions Flashcards
universality thesis of facial expressions
arised due to research in 1969-1975 -> small scale societies in Pacific -> not exposed to Western norms, correctly matched configurations of facial movements to emotions stories
weakness: limited response options
how did findings from 2008 change the perception of facial expression universality?
more small scale societies included (African, South American countries)
strengths: increased diversity in ecological and social contexts + more flexibility in response options
making sense of facial expressions in terms of action identification
affect concepts may be universally perceived
however, emotions concept may vary cross-culturally
people don’t always infer mental causes of facial movements (mentalizing)
What part of facial expressions seems to be universally perceived?
valence -> pleasent/unpleasent
arousal -> high/low
mentalizing
infering specific mental features (such as fear) from facial expressions
-> emphasis on unobservable mental causes of movements
action identification
making sense of facial expressions in terms of behaviors (looking, smelling)
-> emphasis on function of behaviors
Where cultural variation is pleasent in emotional research?
emotional experiences, emotion words, subjective well-being and happiness
About what couples with different cultural backgrounds may disagree on?
-> stimulus -> what causes emotional reactions?
-> appraisal -> different interpretations of situations
-> action readiness -> internal feeling of wanting to do sth
-> physiological response
-> emotion words characteristic to language of origin
-> emotional behavior
evolutionary approach to emotions
James Lange Theory of Emotions -> our body responds to environmental stimuli by preparing us to react in order to survive
emotions = bodily cues that signal how we should behave
social constructionist approach to emotions
Walter Cannon - argued that autonomic nervous system is too clumsy and slow to differentiate between all emotional states
argues that emotions are based on physiological responses + interpretation of those responses (multi-component factor)
emotional are highly variable and contextualised responses -> more social approach: what kinds of situations are understood in what way?
study - ephedrine shot
participants received shot of ephedrine which lead to strong physiological arousal
different situational cues:
euphoria condition -> nice confederate
anger condition -> rude confederate
when participants were not informed that they received the drug, they interpreted their arousal according to situational cues
showcasing that emotions depend on interpretations of physiological responses
Do facial expressions have evolutionary advantage?
disgust -> nostrils constricted -> harder to breathe in -> protection from toxic fumes
anger -> brow furrows -> protection from potential blows
Paul Ekman -> studies in New Guinea - high agreement in emotional recognition (except for surprise and sadness)
What emotion is recognized cross-culturally?
happiness
may be due to the fact that it primarily codes valence
display rules
culturally specific rules that govern which facial expressions are appropriate in given situation and how intensly they should be exhibited
examples:
Bali -> avoiding strong emotional displays
Utku Inuit -> expressions of anger absent (hostile environment - need for collaboration)
USA -> upregulation of happiness
Arab context -> honor
Do display rules affect emotions?
facial feedback hypothesis: facial expressions are one source of information we use when we infer emotional experiences
people were asked to put pen between their lips (contracting eyebrows -> anger) vs to put pen between their teeth (smiling)
cartoons were rated as funnier when participants were smiling
also botox injections make people slowe at reading emotional content
ingroup advantage
more accurate recognition of emotions within the same culture/language group (9% above the 58% accuracy average)
What are problems with paradigms asking people to match facial expressions to emotions?
1) no context -> context imapcts how you interpret emotion
2) forced choices
3) answers teach emotional concepts - via repeated trials people get an idea how they should respond
emotional experience of independent self
personal differentiation
concerned about how events might distinguish one from others
emotions are considered intrapersonal states that lie within the individual
different kinds of emotions common! -> interpersonally disengaged emotions -> proud, anger
emotional experience of interdependent self
interpersonal harmony
concerned about how events affect close others as well as onself
emotions are considered interpersonal states that connect people
different kinds of emotions common! -> interpersonally engaged -> respect, shame
why is it hard for Japanese people to indicate how they would feel in certain situations?
because the descriptions of situation do not contain information how others are feeling
Do people experience emotions not relevant to their self concept?
for interdependent self, anger is not essential experience
on average Chinese Canadians found scenarios less anger provoking; also systolic blood pressure (arousal) drops quicker for them
-> weaker emotional experience
whereas European Canadians were more prone to outwardly express anger
emotion words
culturally specific
schadenfreude (German) → joy when bad things happen to sb else who deserved it
amae (Japan) -> sweet dependence
iklas (Japan) -> pleasant feeling of frustration
ideal affect
desired feelings/emotions
although happiness is recognized universally, it doesn’t mean that people are happy about the same types of things
subjective well being of independent self
interpersonally disengaging acts feel good
well being = positive feelings
the more positive feelings, the better
high arousal positive emotions - exicitement, joy
subjective well being of interdependent self
interpersonally engaging acts feel good
well being = appriopriate role behaviors
balance between positive and negative feelings
low arousal positive emotions -> calmness, relaxation
physical attractiveness - unviersal vs culture specific components
universal: skin, symmetry, avarageness (evolutionary explanations)
culture-specific: body weight, body decoration
why is clear skin attractive?
diseases show on the skin
indicator of health
no parasites
why is symmetry attractive?
more relevant in tribes with heightened infant mortality - signifies health and good development in womb, also lack of parasites
function unviersal - cognitively available, used in the same way - but not accessible to the same extent
why are average faces attractive?
easier to process (resemble prototype), less likely associated with genetic abnormalities
mixed ethniity faces more favored especially in multicultural contexts (best average)
also signals genetic diversity
propinquity
closeness in space
universal
people become friends with those with whom they have frequent interactions
mere exposure effect
policeman lined in alphabetical order were more likely to become friends according to this order (also found in chickens)
similarity
sharing important similar values, personality
creates attraction -> not universally across all cultures (also absent in chickens)
more important for independent self!
less important for interdependent self -> less mobility between outgroup vs ingroup -> pre-determined who will be in your social circle
types of close relationships
1) communal sharing
2) authority ranking
3) equality matching
4) market pricing
communal sharing
take what you need, contribute what you can, no record keeping
examples: family dinner
prevalence: foraging societies with little or no surplus
authority ranking
privilages and prestige for high standing members, protection and care for low standing members
examples: military, caste system
prevalence: hierarchical societies
equality matching
recordkeeping, balance and reciprocity
example: dinner invitations, gift giving in Japan
prevalence: subsistence societies with surplus
market pricing
proportionality and ratio, cost-benefit analysis, status is irrelevant
example: market
prevalence: individualistic societies
independent self -> friends and enemies
many friends, little enemies
high relational mobility - more opportunities for new relations
choose to whom they relate to (trust)
conditional and voluntary, mutually beneficial
casual attitude
solicited advice
similarity and attractiveness as decisive factors (more tyranny of beautiful, more halo effect)
interdependent self
few friends, more enemies - higher standard who can be called a friend
low relational mobility - stable relations
relationships are born of the network (unavoidable) - assurance
unconditional and enduring benefits, but also obligations
painstaking (often cautious) attitude
unsolicited advice
similarity and attractiveness not that important
are romantic relationships universal?
- romantic love was evident in 89% of 166 cultures (based on ethnographies)
- remaining 11% - argued that ethnographic oversight
- meaning and display of affection differed
why do we love?
→ parental love increases survival chances of offspring (long dependent infancy needs care)
→ romantic love increases survival chances of offspring (two parents can provide better care)
- but single parents in Western context do as well as two parents! → enough environmental support!
love marriages
nuclear family with weak ties
glue: romantic love keeps partners together
individualistic societies: behavior reflects dispositions, more idealization, higher divorce rates
level of satisfaction in different models of marriage
arranged marriages -> less satisfied in the beginning, over time more satidfied -> why?
- may be due to conducting study in India -> being in love marriage was not culturally valued
-> starting with little love means it can only increase
-> over time parental identity becomes more pronounced and important.
arranged marriages
extended family system - strong ties
glue: kin relations provide social pressure for couple to stay together
collectivistic societies: behavior reflects situational constraints, less idealization
