2560745
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Cognitive social perspective interpretation of emotion | Assumes individual composed of various interacting cognitive processes By systematically studying how processes cause people to react in certain ways in certain situations it's possible to find out more about their function in a generalisable way |
| DP interpretation of emotion | Looks at ways emotion constructed in discourse Emotion = conceptual resources deployed for conversational purposes Ontologically not concerned with existence of 'inner life' or 'inner processes' Focus on use of discourse & language & emotional life as expressed in conversation |
| Phenomenological interpretation of emotion | Focus on emotions that people are aware of & can describe The emotional experience - not causes or motives Conceptualises people via their lived experiences Assumes experiences can be accessed & shared |
| Power & Situated Knowledge | Mainstream research: history of deception power of researcher seldom questioned research situated within theoretical traditions with focus on individual or social - methods have constructed nature of emotions Discursive: shows how emotions used within social & cultural contexts some have power to construct which emotions are socially perceived as right/wrong (boys don't cry) |
| Individual-social Dualism | Emotion theories on continuum regarding emphasis on individual or social factors Early theorists - social context mainly irrelevant Others have seen it having influence on emotions Only DP attempt to dissolve dualism by showing individual emotions are constructed & applied using culturally accessible discourses |
| Agency-structure Dualism | Research suggests we have biological propensity to experience emotions Some might be automatic responses to dangerous stimuli We can draw on socially available discourses to use emotional talk for purposes - but these choices are constrained |
| Boys don't cry | Boys learn not to cry - social pressures incl. bullying A/S - choose not to cry? Emotional - questionable how in control a boy is if crying. But many men 'cant' remember last time they cried (proud, masculinity). So choice? How choose? SK - not in every society (past/present) so cultural/historical. E.g. less prohibited in the 50's? PR - Boy learns not to cry =>proud of masculinity (constructs as male in control of emotions). Why? Positions girls as those who cry. Boys proud not to cry then tease girls for being weak Effects gender relations: sets up boys as superior to girls re emotional control; girls = weaker sex |
| 3 common approaches | 1)Biological - set of basic emotions, pre-programmed into brain. More complex emotions emerge later via learning from social environment 2) All emotions learnt as we develop 3) Emotions don't exist as well defined & distinct psychological objects. Instead, appearance of structure is an artefact resulting from imposing particular cultural concepts onto what we experience |
| James' feedback theory (1884) | Body reacts automatically to an event Then emotions occur as a perception of event Emotions sense in body e.g. spot snake>heart beats faster & adrenalin pumps>fear emotion arises *Issue* - How does perceiving something as emotional lead to specific changes in body? We have to know something is frightening *before* we can react to it as such! |
| Cannon's theory (1927) | Quantitative measurement of bodily changes Physiological changes occurred in emotional states *but* contrasting emotions produce similar changes - imply fear & anger shouldn't feel different Therefore: event leads to emotion which then activates a typical behaviour e.g. spot snake>fear emotion arises>run away Common pattern of activation of ANS associated with many different emotions - that are experienced in the brain NOT lower body |
| Schachter's theory (1959) | Neither James or Cannon theories were social psych in nature People make sense of emotion via comparison with others in similar circumstances i.e. emotion from bodily perception. These can feel similar so we infer what we're feeling according to social situation & how others react Emotion dependent on 2 factors: Physiological = intensity of emotion Cognition = quality of emotion e.g. Spot snake>adrenalin released & heart beats faster>snake is interpreted as dangerous>fear emotion arises>run away Idea of appraisal strength of theory - but physiological & cognitive responses act in parallel, not separately - so can't be independently manipulated Theory highly influential |
| Schachter & Singer (1962) | •'Suproxin' experiment Adrenaline injected & placebo injected conditions - Ps told it was a vitamin supplement. Some informed of possible side-effects, others not Euphoria & anger conditions induced by stooges •Schachter's theory - emotion should only be experienced if physiological stimulation present *and* the individual believes it is caused by their situation Also - emotional experiences should correspond to that of stooge •Results - Ps experiencing unexplained arousal from adrenaline not report more emotion than placebo Ps Some Ps happy in angry condition •Criticisms - Deception; Giving drugs; Insults (later replications refused Anger condition - Marshall & Zimbardo) (Power issue?) •Self-report measure of how P felt, but how correspond to experienced emotion? •Schachter ack anger under reported - re social acceptability? |
| Appraisal theory (social cognitive approach) Arnold | Emotion results from perception of external event & how we interpret it Arnold ('60) Emotional reaction based on whether event relevant to things we want (or don't) i.e. perceiving things as relevant Action tendency (not subjective feeling) @ heart of emotion How we appraise situation affects whether we feel emotion & what emotion if we do Arnold investigates from functional perspective - interested on impact on behaviour: how it changes how we position ourselves in relation to external factors Allows for possibility we might be emotional w/o recognising it for ourselves Instead of bodily changes (James) it's appraisals that determine whether something is emotional & *also* the difference between different emotions |
| Appraisal theory - Smith & Lazarus (1993) | Appraisal linked to goals If not linked then no emotion If yes, then motivational congruence (i.e. help or hinder goals?) Secondary appraisal determines which emotion re how event to be explained - accountability how it can be dealt with - coping potential |
| Appraisal theory - summary | Appraisal & emotion absolutely dependent on each other - not separable Could be emotion understood in terms of implied appraisals - not emotions resulting from an appraisal itself Theory: 1) Argues emotion results from perceiving & interpreting external events & not result of internal symptoms 2) Defines relational meanings for emotion terms like anger, guilt etc. 3) But it's not certain how such relational meanings consistently map onto any particular emotion |
| Emotion & Social Identity | Emotions affected by groups/organisations we belong to. High id with a group can lead to -ve or desensitised feelings when that group does something wrong Doosje et al ('98) people feel guilty by association re identifying with certain groups (e.g. Germans/Nazis) Smith ('93) group events become personally relevant & provoke emotional response. High level of id may lead to rejection of ambiguous evidence of group wrong-doing to protect personally valuable id |
| Emotional Labour | Appraisals can be manipulated by experiments & employers - produce specified emotional effects e.g. politeness in flight attendants even when passenger drunk! (Hochschild '83) |
| Basic Emotions | Ekman ('72) neurocultural theory of emotion Emotions adaptive responses re evolutionary challenges Auto-appraisers - respond to adaptively import info & trigger pre-prog emotional response Distinctive changes (per emotion): - ANS - Subjective feelings - Facial expressions Learn what's appropriate w/ in society - explains not all cues across societies result in same emotion Display rules - societal rules re how expression of emotion should be ctrl - regulate bio triggered responses |
| Facial expressions of basic emotions Ekman study | Ekman cross-cultural experimental studies re recognition of facial expressions Borneo people id emotions of N. Americans Suggest *universal* link between emotion & facial expression *BUT* agreement <100% (except for smile/happy) Why gap? Why same for smile? |
| Facial expressions of basic emotions Russell | Russell ('94) If facial expressions diagnostic - why didn't non-Westerners perform better @ simple multi-choice task? Ps may have worked out correct answer by piecing together other clues - e.g. fixed stare & down-turned mouth signal disapproval making anger best fit Some aspects of expressions universal - *BUT* specific expressions not indicate particular emotions Fridlund ('94) expression not for emotion but to convey a message to others |
| Nature of emotion categories Flaw in Ekman's research | Ps linked photos to words describing emotion Translation issues? Not 1:1 correspondence between languages & cultures (both ways) Apparent structure of emotions = perception NOT psych reality Russell ('03) emotions culturally constructed - artefacts imposed on our experience, not reflection of reality Therefore, not possible to distinguish (basic) emotions from how they're represented |
| Emotion discourse (1) Russell | Limitation of experiments - use of self-reports. Answers given tell more about Ps interpretation that emotion itself Russell ('03) self-report use concepts not perfectly defined. Self-report NOT objective representation of person's internal state - it's a communication to another person made for specific purpose *NOT* dealt with by majority of researchers |
| Emotion Discourse (2) Edwards | Edwards - discursive approach No assumptions re existence of emotions Examines how *talk about our emotions* function in interactions w/ others *conceptual resource used in conversations* NOT a psych phenomena that requires classification Talk is *flexible* enough to be used for variety of purposes Emotion doesn't exist as separate psych entity but is always a construct specifically formulated for purpose Doesn't stop consideration of cause-effect of non-linguistic phenomena (e.g. expressions) - more linked to what people think of as emotion |
| Emotion Discourse (3) | Problem re claim emotional expression universal - experiments, non-Westerners don't do well matching faces to words Facial expressions may evolved to transmit intention not emotion Linguistic categories don't perfectly correlate w/ facial expressions - cultural meanings *imposed* on experience rather than reflections of psych reality *categories of emotion lie in the eye of beholder* Possible we may never be able to access emotions - only our representations of them Talk can position people as innocent or guilty, rational or irrational Categories are flexible & used for multiple purposes |
| Connie & Jimmy relationship counselling - Edwards, DP | They present alt versions of events to counsellor DP agnostic re independent emotional reality - may/may not be inner life underlying emotions Focus on how emotions *talked about* & *used* in discourse 'emotion words' used in people's accounts to explain events & actions, to argue & apportion blame |
| Edwards' review of Sun editorial of Earl Spencer's criticism of the press following Diana's death | •Characterised Spencer as emotional not cognitive •Characterised emotion as grief not anger •If emotional then not rational so don't listen too much to him •If grief then object of grief = sister •If anger object would be press •Shows basis of choice for emotional language used •Cognitive - would have seen it as naive - i.e. the Sun just writing about Spencer's grief for no good reason •Cognitive approaches to emotional language naive if not take into a/c uses of discourse |
| Rhetorical contrasts - Edwards, DP (1) | •Oppositions of emotional expressions used in emotional discourse - to say & stress one thing instead of/alternative to another •Shows range of things emotion discourse can do in talk/text - creating one meaning in contrast/exclusion to other possible meanings |
| Rhetorical contrasts - Edwards, DP (2) | Depending on emotional concepts used - Jimmy's reaction can be seen as justified & reactive anger in a specific situation - denying dispositional jealousy (or vice versa) **Shows contrast of emotions: event driven vs dispositional** Jimmy can be described w/ emotional terms as 'enduringly jealous' vs being in 'angry state' **Shows contrast of emotions: dispositions vs temporary states** |
| Rhetorical contrasts - Edwards, DP (3) | Dependent on how emotions rhetorically positioned, emotion talk can create very different meanings regarding a person's responsibility vs irresponsibility; guilt vs non-guilt etc |
| Historical changes in jealousy | Early - seen as natural (e.g. Bible); men 'allowed' to murder wives 20/30's - seen as psychological problem 60's - seen as vehicle for exploitation Now - each construction exist alongside others providing repertoire of constructions |
| Cultural differences re jealousy | Innuit 'putting out the lamp' ceremony & sex with guest Different interpretations around the world from not asking for water from another wife to no issue with sex with guest Culture provides framework within which individual 'makes sense' of their world and their emotions |
| Pre-linguistic emotion | Infants can't speak - can be examined discursively: 1) exploring how caregivers explain behaviour in emotional terms 2) treating expressions & gestures as conversational moves Reddy ('00) VT infants playing in front mirror Monitored gaze withdrawal when infant began to smile in response to adult attention Subjective - what is a smile and gaze withdrawal Observers use own words Keltner - developed criteria for detecting non-verbal emotion in adults |
| Emotion as relation alignment | DP shows emotion talk can be used to justify, undermine, draw attention to particular version of events Russell - no simple object = emotion exists (no causal theory of emotions) Social psych of emotions?? 1) emotion in verbal/non-verbal terms (e.g. someone happy = smile) Function of signal can be determined; symptoms of signal can be seen on others in terms of emotion 2) emotion discourse more developed form of non-verbal comms which precede it Appraisal theory - we align relations w/ others in particular way due to how we appraised a situation *BUT* Possible to use anger to achieve social effect - even if not appraised situation we can still display it if we want/need to |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.