For exam- or present qualitative emotional situations. In addition, ing artificial emotion framework. It provides an innovative they are also based on affective computing model in e-learn- approach to predict artificial emotions and feelings decision ing system [5].
In addition to retaining the original feeling of There are two kinds of ways to research the mental model: quantitative character, it also shows true feelings of gradual the basic emotions theory and dimension theory [6]. Theoretical Background 2. Emotion Modelling.
In the field of artificial emotion, many studies have focused on intelligent computing systems 2. Artificial Emotion and Affective Computing. The artificial to create a perception, recognition, and understanding of emotion or affective computing is a new research direction human emotions. To achieve emotional fuzzy pattern recognition model, and variable fuzzy recog- intelligence system, we must first establish an appropriate nition model confrontation.
The base model with the core computational model to describe the emotion. Let in the blank spaces are the primary dyads—emotions that are mixtures of two of the primary emotions, as shown in Figure 1. Variable Fuzzy Sets when 3. Opposition Fuzzy Sets. The Relative Proportions of the Function. Figure 2: Tree-layer architecture. Therefore, the relative proportions of quantitative and qualitative change gradient type, mutant the two functions a give complete description of the natural type judgment criteria are as follows: dialectic about a qualitative change in formation: gradient nonexplosive qualitative and mutant explosive qualitative.
The architecture reference to the main field, and gradient-type and mutant type qualitative relevant research for emotion forecasting system is composed community sector. The input data are dependent on the domain. This paper presents variable fuzzy set as a technique for emotion predicting.
It provides an operational blueprint so that researcher can consult it for predicting emotions in the future, especially in game development. Emotions predic- Positioning Verification tion in intelligent system can improve the interaction between and and humans and machines. This book includes the modern approaches of emotion analysis. Also, the author refers to the previous theories, trying to show the continuity through the entire human history. To better understand the human-as-a-being, it is very important to know the processes of emotions and their determinants.
Based on this analysis, we may predict the future actions of the being. This book tries to explain the p This book tries to explain the processes which are forming inside the human body, especially the processes which are happening inside the human brain. Based on the analysis done until present times, this book offers the basic information regarding the forming of micro expressions.
Through this book, the author tried to present also the weak parts of the already enounced theories of emotions, especially, the weakness of the measurement of emotions. Based on this analysis, we. Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience, Volume 1: Theories of Emotion, presents broad theoretical perspectives representing all major schools of thought in the study of the nature of emotion.
The contributions contained in the book are characterized under three major headings - evolutionary context, psychophysiological context, and dynamic context. Subjects that are. A thought-provoking journey into emotion science. It will also be of interest to those in biology, animal behaviour, zoology, evolutionary biology, physiology, nutrition, psychiatry, medicine, and philosophy.
The book has been written with modular chapters. A Theory of Feelings examines the problem of human feelings, widely understood, from phenomenological, analytical, and historical perspectives. It begins with an analysis of drives and affects, and pursues the nature of 'feeling' itself, in all of its variability, through a close study of the distinctive categories of the emotions,.
The same is almost certainly true of the neural mechanisms that control those movements Griffiths, , p. Rather than simply focusing on the functions of the emotions, this kind of analysis is more useful for psychology and neuropsychology because these sciences are interested in identifying the mechanisms that drive behavior Griffiths, Social and Cultural Theories The second main approach to explaining the emotions begins with the idea that emotions are social constructions.
That is, emotions are the products of societies and cultures, and are acquired or learned by individuals through experience. Virtually everyone who defends this position acknowledges that emotions are to some degree, natural phenomena. Nonetheless, the central claim made in these theories is that the social influence is so significant that emotions are best understood from this perspective.
Motivations for the Social Approach This section will discuss some of the motivations for adopting this approach to explaining the emotions. Some brief examples to show how these ideas have been developed are also reviewed. A number of anthropological studies have found discrepancies among the emotion words used in different languages.
In particular, there are emotion words in other languages that do not correspond directly or even closely to emotion words in English. Given that individuals experience the emotions that they have terms for and vice versa , the claim that follows from these findings is that people in different cultures have and experience different emotions.
The following are some of the examples that are often used to illustrate the variability of emotion terms. The people of Ifaluk, a small island in the Pacific, have an emotion that they refer to as fago. The Japanese have the emotion amae, which is a feeling of dependency upon anothers love. This is similar to the feeling that children have towards their mothers, but it is experienced by adults. And there are several cultures in which anger and sadness are not distinguished as separate, discrete emotions Orley, [quoted in Russell, ]; Davitz, ; M.
Rosaldo, ; R. Rosaldo, See Russell [] for a comprehensive review of this literature. Emotions typically occur in social settings and during interpersonal transactions many, if not most, emotions are caused by other people and social relationships. Thus, in many cases emotions may be best understood as interactions between people, rather than simply as one individuals response to a particular stimulus Parkinson, In brief, Parkinson describes emotion as: something that emerges directly through the medium of interaction.
Interpersonal factors are typically the main causes of emotion, and emotions lead people to engage in certain kinds of social encounter or withdraw from such interpersonal contact. Many emotions have relational rather than personal meanings and the expression of these meanings in an emotional interaction serves specific interpersonal functions depending on the nature of the emotion , p. Rom Harr also points out that language, social practices, and other elements of an individuals culture have a significant role in the formation of emotions.
Individuals in a society develop their emotions based on what they are exposed to and experience, either directly or indirectly , One example that Harr uses to demonstrate this is an emotion that depended upon religious beliefs and the norms that develop around those beliefs in the Middle Ages. Moreover, this emotion was the major spiritual failing to which those who should have been dutiful succumbed and to feel it at all was a sin p. Nevertheless, experience it people did. Today, although people still get bored and dejected, this emotion no longer exists because our emotions are, according to Harr and Finlay-Jones, defined against the background of a different moral order p.
Emotions and their expression are regulated by social norms, values, and expectations. These norms and values influence what the appropriate objects of emotion are that is, what events should make a person angry, happy, jealous, and so on , and they also influence how emotions should be expressed. As an example of how specific and recognizable these norms, values, and expectations sometimes are, one can consider emotion rules that Americans often follow.
James Averill ; see also has identified the rules for anger, some of which are listed here:. A person has the right duty to become angry at intentional wrongdoing or at unintentional misdeeds if those misdeeds are correctable for example, due to negligence, carelessness, or oversight. Anger should be directed only at persons and, b y extension, other entities ones self, human institutions that can be held responsible for their actions.
Anger should not be displaced on an innocent third party, nor should it be directed at the target for reasons other than the instigation. The angry response should be proportional to the instigation; that is, it should not exceed what is necessary to correct the situation, restore equity, or prevent the instigation from happening again. Anger should follow closely the provocation and not endure longer than is needed to correct the situation typically a few hours or days, at most pp. Once these rules are specified by society either implicitly or explicitly , they become, Averill says, part of our second nature , p.
Claire Armon-Jones goes further and says that the purpose of the emotions is to reinforce societys norms and values b, see also , a. Allowing that emotions may also serve other purposes, some of the functions that they have are the regulation of socially undesirable behavior and the promotion of attitudes which reflect and endorse the interrelated religious, political, moral, aesthetic and social practices of a society b, p.
For example, an individuals envy of someone who is successful or his guilt over having cheated someone are both emotions that have been prescribed by the individuals society so that the individual will take the appropriate attitude towards success and cheating. Of course, there are times when emotion responses do not adhere well to what one may think of as moral rules or values, for instance, taking pleasure in creating graffiti or taking pride in hurting people.
For these cases, Armon-Jones suggests that the emotion has still been learned by the individual, just not in a way that is consistent with what the larger portion of the society would endorse. Rather, the individual has acquired the emotion from some sub-population of society or a peer-group that the individual identifies with b. Emotions Are Transitory Social Roles: Averill Many theories have been developed from the social perspective, but one that has been particularly significant is James Averills, which will be reviewed in this section , , According to Averill, an emotion is a transitory social role a socially constituted syndrome that includes an individuals appraisal of the situation and that is interpreted as a passion rather than as an action , p.
These transitory social roles and syndromes are generated by social norms and expectations, and so, by these means, social norms and expectations govern an individuals emotions. Averill employs the notion of a syndrome to indicate that each emotion like fear, anger or embarrassment , covers a variety of elements. A syndrome is a collection of all of the appropriate responses of a particular emotion, any of which may at certain times constitute an emotion response, but none of which are essential or necessary for that.
It also consists of beliefs about the nature of the eliciting stimuli and perhaps some natural that is, non-social elements. All of these various components are linked together for an individual by principles of organization. These principles are what allow the various elements to be construed coherently as one particular emotion For example, grief is a syndrome. Every individual who understands this syndrome may at different times have the following grief responses: shock, crying, refusing to cry that is, keeping a stiff upper lip , declining to eat, neglecting basic responsibilities, and so on.
Further, the conditions that the individual understands should elicit grief are also part of this syndrome: the death of a loved one, the loss of a valuable object, a setback at work, rainy days, and so forth.
Bringing these parts together into one coherent whole are the mental constructs that allow an individual to construe all of these various elements as grief.
An individual labels both his response at a funeral and his response to his favorite baseball team losing as grief, even if the two responses have nothing in common.
Additionally, with an understanding of the grief syndrome an individual can judge when others are experiencing grief and whether another individuals grief is genuine, severe, mild, and so on. The idea of emotions as transitory social roles is distinct from the notion of a syndrome, but characterizes the same phenomena, in particular, the eliciting conditions and the responses for an emotion.
In Averills theory, transitory social roles are the roles that individuals adopt when they choose to play a particular part in a situation as it unfolds. That being said, although the individual chooses the role, Averill stresses that the emotional responses are interpreted by the agent as passive responses to particular situations, not as active choices. The transitory social roles are rule governed ways of performing a social role, and so individuals adopt a role that is consistent with what a given situation calls for.
For example, a grief response is appropriate at a funeral, but different grief responses are appropriate at the burial and at the service before the burial. In order to have an emotion response that is consistent with social norms and expectations, the individual must understand what the role they are adopting means in the context in which it is used.
Summarizing these different resources from Averills theory, the syndromes are used to classify emotions and demarcate them from each other. The transitory social roles are useful for explaining how the emotion responses relate to the society as well as the specific social context.
Considering an emotion as a syndrome, the individual has a variety of choices for the emotion response. The transitory social role imposes rules that dictate which response is appropriate for the situation. For example, the possible responses for anger may include pouting, yelling, hitting, or perhaps no overt behavior at all.
In a particular situation, say a baseball game, a player may adopt a social role that includes pushing the umpire as an anger response. Yelling at the umpire would have been another role the player could have adopted. However, social norms and expectations dictate that pouting in this situation would not be an appropriate response.
Theories of the Emotion Process. The third category of theories contains those that attempt to describe the emotion process itself. Generally speaking, the emotion process begins with the perception of a stimulus, although in some cases the stimulus may be internal, for example, a thought or a memory.
The early part of the emotion process is the activity between the perception and the triggering of the bodily response that is, the emotion response , and the later part of the emotion process is the bodily response: changes in heart rate, blood pressure, facial expression, skin conductivity, and so forth. Most of the theories that will be considered in this section focus on the early part of the emotion process becauseaccording to these theoriesthe specific emotion that occurs is determined during this part of the process.
There is, however, disagreement about how simple or complex the early part of the emotion process might be, which has lead to competing cognitive and non-cognitive theories. These two types of theories are discussed in this section, as is a third type, the somatic feedback theories.
Cognitive Theories The cognitive theories contend that the early part of the emotion process includes the manipulation of information and so should be understood as a cognitive process. This is in contrast to theories that state that the generation of the emotion response is a direct and automatic result of perceiving the stimulusthese non-cognitive theories are discussed below.
Two observations demonstrate some of the motivation for the cognitive position. First, different individuals will respond to the same event with different emotions, or the same individual may at different times respond differently to the same stimulus.
For example, one person may be relieved to be laid-off from her job, while a co-worker greets the same news with dread. Or one person may, as a young woman, be excited to be laid-off from her job, but several years later find being laid-off frightening. As the psychologists Ira Roseman and Craig Smith point out, Both individual and temporal variability in reaction to an event are difficult to explain with theories that claim that stimulus events directly cause emotional response , p.
Second, there is a wide range of seemingly unrelated events that cause the same emotion. None of these events share any physical feature or property, but all of them can cause the same response. Cognitive theories account for these two observations by proposing that the way in which the individual evaluates the stimulus determines the emotion that is elicited. Every individual has beliefs, as well as goals, personal tendencies, and desires in place before the emotion causing event is encountered.
It is in light of these factors that an. For example, different emotions will occur depending on whether an individual evaluates being laid-off as consistent with her current goals or inconsistent with them. Judgment Theories Judgment theories are the version of the cognitive position that have been developed by philosophers. The basic idea, as Robert Solomon puts it, is that an emotion is a basic judgment about our Selves and our place in our world, the projection of the values and ideals, structures and mythologies, according to which we live and through which we experience our lives , p.
Judging in this context is the mental ability that individuals use when they acknowledge a particular experience or the existence of a particular state of the world; what Martha Nussbaum calls assent[ing] to an appearance , p. Taking anger as an example, in Solomons theory, What constitutes the anger is my judging that I have been insulted and offended , p. Nussbaum has a similar, but more detailed, description of anger as the following set of beliefs: that t here has been some damage to me or to something or someone close to me; that the damage is not trivial but significant; that it was done by someone; that it was done willingly; that it would be right for the perpetrator of the damage to be punished , p.
In some contexts, Nussbaum treats judgments and beliefs interchangeably and it is sometimes the case that a series of judgments constitute the emotion. Elaborating upon her example, Nussbaum points out how the different beliefs are related to the emotion. She notes that, each element of this set of beliefs is necessary in order for anger to be present: if I should discover that not x but y had done the damage, or that it was not done willingly, or that it was not serious, we could expect my anger to modify itself accordingly or recede , p.
Thus, a change in an individuals beliefsin his or her way of seeing the worldentails a different emotion, or none at all. Judging is the central idea in these theories because it is something that the agent actively does, rather than something that happens to the individual.
This in turn reflects the judgment theorists claim that in order to have an emotion the individual must judge evaluate, acknowledge that events are a certain way. Of course, one can make judgments that are not themselves emotions.
For example, the judgment that the wall is red, or the judgment that the icy road is dangerous. One way to distinguish the judgments that are emotions from those that are not is to suggest like Nussbaum that the judgment must be based on a certain set of beliefs.
If those beliefs are present, then the emotion will occur; if they are not, then it wont. A second response is to be more specific about the nature of the judgment itself. The judgments related to emotions are, as Solomon says, self-involved and relatively intense evaluative judgments The judgments and objects that constitute our emotions are those which are especially important to us, meaningful to us, concerning matters in which we have invested our Selves , p.
It is also important to note that, although these theories claim that emotion is a cognitive process, they do not claim that it is a conscious or a deliberative process. As Solomon says, by judgment, I do not necessarily mean deliberative judgment One might. For example, the judgment that I have been insulted and offended does not necessarily require any conscious mental effort on my part.
The last issue that needs to be addressed concerns the bodily response. All of the judgment theories state that judgments are necessary for an emotion. While these theories acknowledge that in many cases various bodily responses will accompany the emotion, many do not consider the bodily response an integral part of the emotion process. Nussbaum believes that this can be demonstrated by considering the consequences of having the requisite mental states while not having a bodily response: There usually will be bodily sensations and changes involved in grieving, but if we discovered that my blood pressure was quite low during this whole episode, or that my pulse rate never went above sixty, there would not, I think, be the slightest reason to conclude that I was not grieving.
If my hands and feet were cold or warm, sweaty or dry, again this would be of no critical value , p. Some judgment theorists are, however, more accommodating and allow that the bodily response is properly considered part of the emotion, an effect of the judgments that are made.
Thus, William Lyons describes his theory, the causal-evaluative theory, as follows: the causal-evaluative theory gets its name from advocating that X is to be deemed an emotional state if and only if it is a physiologically abnormal state caused by the subject of that states evaluation of his or her situation.
The causal order is important, emotion is a psychosomatic state, a bodily state caused by an attitude, in this case an evaluative attitude , pp. In theory such as Lyons, the bodily response is considered part of the emotion process and the emotion is determined by the cognitive activitythe judgment or evaluation that occurs Lyons , pp.
Cognitive Appraisal Theories Cognitive appraisal theories are the cognitive theories that have been developed by psychologists. Like the judgment theories, the cognitive appraisal theories emphasize the idea that the way in which an individual evaluates or appraises the stimulus determines the emotion. But unlike the judgment theories, the cognitive appraisal theories do not rely on the resources of folk psychology beliefs, judgments, and so forth.
The cognitive appraisal theories also offer a more detailed analysis of the different types of appraisals involved in the emotion process. This section will focus on Ira Rosemans theory , which was one of the first cognitive appraisal theories. As an early contribution, Rosemans theory is in some ways simpler than more recent cognitive appraisal theories and so will serve as a good introduction. Similar models are offered by Roseman, Antoniou, and Jose [], Roseman [], Lazarus [], and Scherer [, ].
The basic theoretical framework is the same for all of the cognitive appraisal theories. The main differences concern the exact appraisals that are used in this process. Rosemans model, which is described in Table 3, has five appraisal components that can produce 14 discrete emotions. The appraisal components and the different values that each component can take are motivational state appetitive, aversive , situational state motive-consistent, motive-inconsistent , probability certain, uncertain, unknown , power strong, weak , and agency self-caused, other-caused, circumstance-caused.
The basic idea is that when a stimulus is encountered it is appraised along these five dimensions. Each appraisal component is assigned one of its possible values, and together these values determine which emotion response will be generated.
Table 3. The different appraisal components in Rosemans theory are motivational state, situational state, probability, power, and agency.
The arrows point to the different values that each appraisal component can take. Each emotion type takes the values that its placement in the chart indicates. When the emotion is placed such that it lines up with more than one value for an appraisal component e. Adapted from Roseman , p. For example, for joy, the situational state must be appraised as motive-consistent, the motivational state as appetitive, agency must be circumstance-caused, probability must be certain, and power can be either weak or strong.
Notice also that the different emotions all use the same appraisal components, and many emotions take the same values for several of the components. For example, in Rosemans model, anger and regret take the same values for all of the appraisals except for the agency component; for that appraisal, regret takes the value self-caused and anger takes other-caused. The five appraisal components are described as follows: 1.
The motivational state appraisal distinguishes between states that the individual views as desirable appetitive and states that are viewed as undesirable aversive. This is not an evaluation of whether the event itself is positive or. A punishment or something perceived as a punishment that is avoided is a positive event, but still includes an evaluation of a punishment.
For example, according to Roseman, although relief is a positive emotion, it includes an evaluation that some important aspect of the event is aversive. Conversely, sorrow, a negative emotion, includes an evaluation that some important aspect of the event is appetitive.
The situational state component determines whether the desirable or undesirable quality of the event is present or absent. The appraisal that something desirable is present and the appraisal that something undesirable is absent are both motive-consistent.
On the other hand, the appraisal that something desirable is absent or something undesirable is present is motive-inconsistent. So for instance, the situational state for both joy and relief is motive-consistent. But, joy includes the appraisals that there is a desirable state and it is present, and relief includes the appraisals that there is an undesirable state and it is absent. The probability component evaluates whether an event is definite certain , only possible uncertain , or of an unknown probability.
For this component, an outcome of uncertainty contributes to hope instead of joy or relief, which both involve an appraisal that the event is certain that is, the outcome of the event has been determined. The possibility that the event can be appraised as having an unknown probability was added by Roseman in order to account for surprise, which is often considered a basic emotion for example, Izard, ; Ekman, For this appraisal, unknown differs from uncertain in that unknown is the value that is assigned when the distinction between motive-consistent versus motive-inconsistent cannot be made.
When the distinction can be made, the value is assigned certain or uncertain. The evaluation of power is the individuals perception of his or her strength or weakness in a situation. These values distinguish, for example, shame weak and regret strong , as well as dislike weak and anger strong.
Roseman suggests a situation that would be likely to cause an evaluation of weakness rather than strength. He suggests that we consider someone being robbed at gunpoint.
Will this person, quite unjustly treated but quite weak, be feeling anger? I contend that he would not, though he would probably feel some negative emotion towards his assailant.
This emotion, in [my] theory, is dislike , p. Lastly, the agency component. An evaluation is made about whether the event was caused by the individual, caused by some other person, or is merely a result of the situation that is, the event is perceived as lacking an agent.
This appraisal usually determines to whom or towards what the emotion is directed. Making this evaluation sometimes requires a subtle understanding of what the emotion-causing stimulus is. For instance, consider an individual who is presented with a gift by a friend. If the individual focuses on the gift and having just received it the general state of affairs , his emotion is joy. If the individual focuses on the friend who has just given the gift focuses on another person , the emotion is liking.
Just like the judgment theorists, Roseman and the other appraisal theorists say that these appraisals do not have to be deliberate, or even something of which the individual is consciously aware. To illustrate this, consider someone accidentally spilling a glass of. According to Rosemans theory, in the first case, the agency appraisal would most likely be circumstance-caused.
In the latter case, it would be other-caused. As a result, different emotions would be elicited. Most people have had an experience like this and can see that determining these values would not take any conscious effort. The values are set outside of conscious awareness. Unlike some of the judgment theorists, all of the cognitive appraisal theorists agree that the appraisals are followed by a bodily response, which is properly consider part of the emotion process.
Roseman suggests that once the appraisals have been made, a response that has the following parts is set in motion: 1 the thoughts, images, and subjective feeling associated with each discrete emotion, 2 the patterns of bodily response, 3 the facial expressions, vocal signals, and postural cues that communicate to others which emotion one is feeling, 4 a behavioral component [that] comprises actions, such as running or fighting, which are often associated with particular emotions, and 5 goals to which particular emotions give rise, such as avoiding some situation when frightened or inflicting harm upon some person when angered , pp.
Non-Cognitive Theories Non-cognitive theories are those that defend the claim that judgments or appraisals are not part of the emotion process.
Hence, the disagreement between the cognitive and the non-cognitive positions primarily entails the early part of the emotion process.
The concern is what intervenes between the perception of a stimulus and the emotion response. The non-cognitive position is that the emotion response directly follows the perception of a relevant stimulus. Thus, instead of any sort of evaluation or judgment about the stimulus, the early part of the emotion process is thought to be reflex-like.
The non-cognitive theories are in many ways a development of the folk psychological view of emotion. This is the idea that emotions are separate from the rational or cognitive operations of the mind: cognitive operations are cold and logical, whereas emotions are hot, irrational, and largely uncontrollable responses to certain events. The non-cognitive position has also been motivated by skepticism about the cognitive theories.
The non-cognitive theorists deny that propositional attitudes and the conceptual knowledge that they require for example, anger is the judgment that I have been wronged are necessary for emotions.
Advocates of the non-cognitive position stress that a theory of emotion should apply to infants and non-human animals, which presumably do not have the cognitive capabilities that are described in the judgment theories or the cognitive appraisal theories. With respect to the non-cognitive theories themselves, there are two different approaches.
The first develops an explanation of the non-cognitive process, but claims that only some emotions are non-cognitive. The second approach describes the noncognitive process in a very similar way, but defends the idea that all emotions are noncognitive. Some Emotions Are Non-Cognitive: Ekman and Griffiths Paul Ekman originally developed what is now the standard description of the noncognitive process , and more recently Paul Griffiths has incorporated Ekmans.
This section will review the way in which Ekman and Griffiths describe the non-cognitive process. The next section will examine a theory that holds that all emotions are non-cognitive, a position that Ekman and Griffiths do not defend. Ekmans model is composed of two mechanisms that directly interface with each other: an automatic appraisal mechanism and an affect programme. Griffiths adopts a slightly different way of describing the model; he treats Ekmans two mechanisms as a single system, which he calls the affect program.
Griffiths also suggests that there is a separate affect program for each of several emotions: surprise, fear, anger, disgust, sadness, and joy , p. As noted in section one, Griffiths identifies this class of emotions, the affect programs, historically. Describing the automatic appraisal mechanism, Ekman says: There must be an appraiser mechanism which selectively attends to those stimuli external or internal which are the occasion for activating the affect programme Since the interval between stimulus and emotional response is sometimes extraordinarily short, the appraisal mechanism must be capable of operating with great speed.
Often the appraisal is not only quick but it happens without awareness, so I must postulate that the appraisal mechanism is able to operate automatically. It must be constructed so that it quickly attends to some stimuli, determining not only that they pertain to emotion, but to which emotion, and then activating the appropriate part of the affect programme , p. The automatic appraisal mechanism is able to detect certain stimuli, which Ekman calls elicitors.
Elicitors can vary by culture, as well as from individual to individual. On a more general level, however, there are similarities among the elicitors for each emotion. These are some of the examples that Ekman offers: Disgust elicitors share the characteristic of being noxious rather than painful; fear elicitors share the characteristic of portending harm or pain.
0コメント