1 / 59

Emotions and Perception

Emotions and Perception. Class 25. Final Exam Date and Time. Date: Tuesday, May 14 Time: 11:45-2:45 Course Evaluations [SIRS] Please complete!. Emotions Diary Exercise. 1. Some were surprised, some not surprised a. Degree certain emotions predominated b. Degree emotions varied

cece
Download Presentation

Emotions and Perception

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Emotions and Perception Class 25

  2. Final Exam Date and Time Date: Tuesday, May 14 Time: 11:45-2:45 Course Evaluations [SIRS] Please complete!

  3. Emotions Diary Exercise 1. Some were surprised, some not surprised a. Degree certain emotions predominated b. Degree emotions varied 2. Unexpected big influences a. Sleep b. Weather c. Hunger 3. Buffering value of fun. 4. Do emotions --> health, or does health --> emotions?

  4. Diary Exercise Results For All Students, Health was not related to stress (should have been!) but was related to an emotion. Which one? ____ Happy ____ Sad ___ Anxious ___ Angry X r Anx : Health = -.24, p < .05 Emotions and Health differed for men and women MEN WOMEN Health Anxious -.47 + Angry -.54 * Work Stress -.36 Health Anxious -.23 Angry -.02 Work Stress -.05

  5. PERSONAL TIMELINE 2 3 1 What is your TYPICAL feeling state?

  6. Judgment of Typical Feeling State At Start of Term and Diary Study Results Average Diary Ratings Happy.D Angry.D Anxious.D Sad.D Stress.Total.D Happy .58** -.28* -.10 -.22+ -.31* Angry -.33* .31* .38** -.33* .34* Scared -.22+ .07 .28* .25+ .20 Sad -.31* .24 .25* .40** .38** Optimistic .30* -.12 .03 -.18 -.17 Pessimistic -.41** .20 .19 .31* .19 Start of Term Ratings

  7. Timeline Future-Oriented Bias, Diary Results, and Gender PERSONAL TIMELINE MEN WOMEN Future Bias Happy .39 Sad -.59 * Rel. Stress -.63 Future Bias Happy -.03 Angry .30* Work Stress .32+

  8. Psychosocial Resources • Social Support • Self Worth, Self Esteem • Self-Efficacy • Emotional Disclosure

  9. Resources and Coping • Reduced depression and anxiety • Reduced cardiovascular response to stress • Reduced levels of norepinephrine, epinephrine, cortisol • Better immune functioning • Fewer colds, fewer heart attacks, quicker recovery post-MI, reduced cancer, easier childbirth, etc.

  10. Emotional Support andMortality After Heart Attack(Berkman et al., 1992)

  11. How Do Emotional Resources “Work”? Affects the way stressors are experienced Instrumental and informational benefits Psycho-social benefits • Belonging • Enhanced self worth • Existential gains: meaningfulness, control, ordered world Affects the way that stressors are perceived?

  12. Psychosocial Resources Affect Willingness to Face Stressors • Health risks(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998) • Negative feedback (Trope & Neter, 1994) • Arguments that challenge beliefs (Cohen, et al., 2000)

  13. Stressors Affect Stressor Perception • New Look, Cue Distortion (Easterbrook, 1959). • “Loomingness” e.g., of spiders (Riskind et al., 1995). • Visual “boundary reduction” (Mathews & Mackintosh, 2004) • Anxiety and pain (Rhudy & Meager, 2000) • Time duration and abstinence (Klein et al., 2003)

  14. Psycho-social Resources Social Context and Cue Perception Stressful Events Primary Appraisal Self Relevance Secondary Appraisal Appraisal of Adaptive Capacities Stress Stressor Perception

  15. Research Program Resources moderate: Social Perception – others’ distress Somatic Perception – own physical pain Visual Perception – steepness, distance

  16. Social Support and Perceiving Others' Distress • Purpose: Test whether support moderates the perception of another’s physical distress. • Baby cries as disturbing cue (Bachorowski & Owren, 2002) • Baby cries evoke strong emotions • People gauge own emotions to interpret baby cries • Cries are ambiguous, permit emotion-based interpretation

  17. Method • N = 140 females • Cover story: Mental imagery and social perception • Social context: Guided imagery task • Rate baby cries

  18. Social Context Induction • Positive Support: Imagine most satisfying source of emotional support • Neutral Contact: Imagine someone you neither like nor dislike, but see regularly • Negative Contact: Imagine person who betrayed your trust or otherwise failed you

  19. Cry Samples • Male infants undergoing surgical circumcision. • Detailed explanation regarding procedure. • 12 cries, about 5 s each, mixed order • 4 low intensity • 4 moderate intensity • 4 high intensity

  20. Cry Ratings by Social Context Mood: F (1, 138) = 10.85, p < .01 Social context: F (2, 138) = 3.36 p < .04

  21. The Effects of Social Context and Emotional Disclosure on Cry Perception • Negative social contexts deplete resources, lead to amplified perception of others’ distress. • Emotional disclosure bolsters resources. • Disclosure should therefore counteract the amplifying effects of negative social contexts.

  22. Method • N = 121 females • Cover story: Mental imagery and social perception • Social context: Mentally image positive, neutral, or negative contact • Disclosure task Disclose: Thoughts and feelings regarding imaged person Suppress: Describe imaged person factually • Rate baby cries

  23. Social Context and Emotional Disclosure on Baby Cry Ratings (Harber, Einav, & Lang, 2008)

  24. Social Context and Emotional Disclosure on Baby Cry Ratings (Harber, Einav, & Lang, 2008) Support X Disclosure: p < .01 Positive Suppress vs. Negative Suppress: p < .07 Negative Express vs. Negative Suppress: p < .01

  25. Social Support and the Perception of Physical Pain

  26. Pain  Injury Cartesian Pain Model 1-to-1 relationship between injury and pain. Top-down Pain Moderation Melzack and Wall’s (1965) Gate Control Theory Attention (inward/outward) affects pain(Pennebaker, 1983) Emotions (anxiety, fear) affect pain(Rhudy & Meagher, 2000)

  27. Research Design • Participants • N = 38 females • Mean age = 21 years. • Women only because they are: • More susceptible to pain (Gawande, 1998) • More open emotionally (Brody & Hall, 2000)

  28. Effect of Social Context on Pain Rating F (2, 35) = 4.29 p < .03

  29. Summary of Baby Cry and Pain Studies • Social Support buffers pain perception • In others (baby cries) • In oneself (heat probe) • This is not a mood effect • This is not a distraction effect

  30. Social Support and Psychophysical Judgment • Does support extend to visual perception? Do we literally see things differently under high vs. low social support? • Does support affect accuracy of perception? Baby cry, pain studies do not address accuracy. • Do effects replicate with in-vivo support?

  31. Social Support and Slant Perception(Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, & Proffitt, 2008)

  32. Geographical Slant Perception and Social Support • Conscious slant perception (e.g., of hills) is exaggerated(5% is seen as 20%, etc.), as per Proffitt et al., 1995. • Slant distortion is lessened under lower physical load -- Light back pack vs. heavy back pack -- Physically refreshed vs. fatigued -- Good physical condition vs. poor condition -- Younger vs. older • Is slant distortion reduced under lower psychological load?

  33. Verbal 80 70 60 50 Haptic 40 Angle Judged 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Angle of Hill How People "Normally" See Hills

  34. Design and Predictions • How steep is a hill when you are • - alone • - with a friend? • Heavy backpack • Very steep hill

  35. Methods and Measures Participants: Passersby at UVA campus walk Alone (n = 14) Same-sex friend pairs (n = 17; both friends participate) Measures Verbal: “How many degrees is the slant of this hill?”) Visual Judgment: hand protractor Haptic: palm board

  36. Social Support and Slant Verbal: p < .05; control for mood: p < .02 Visual: p < .14; control for mood: p < .10 Note: Line represents actual slant

  37. Friendship Duration (in months) Verbal r = -.49, p < .05 Visual r = -.50, p < .05 Haptic r = -.14, p = ns Mood (negative) Verbal r = -.01, p = ns Visual r = -.13, p = ns Haptic r = .01, p = ns Effects of Friendship Duration, and Mood, on Slant Perception

  38. Slant Study 2: Imaged Support and Slant Perception Note: Line represents actual slant

  39. Correlations Between Relationship Quality and Slant Perception Verbal Visual Haptic Close -.37* -.36* .10 Warm -.33* -.28 .22 Happy -.39* -.20 .12 Note: Effects hold when controlling for mood * = p < .05

  40. Resources and Distance PerceptionHarber, Yeung, & Iacovelli, 2011 • Proffitt shows that physical resources affect distance perception as well as slant (more tired or weighed down, distances seem farther) • Will psycho-social resources also moderate distance perception? • Will self-worth serve as resource?

More Related