Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- emotions_models [2010-12-08 06:45] – rula.sayaf
+++ emotions_models [2010-12-09 06:58] (current) – rula.sayaf
@@ Line 97: / 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, systematic desensitization).
+===Emotions are Social===
+As we have seen before, emotions are personal cognitive appraisals that follow personal interests, goals and perspectives. Parkinson(Parkinson, 1996) however, connects emotions to social relationships. According to his article, humans are affected by people around them and responding to this affection in emotions. Some emotions are related directly to other people like anger, envy, jealousy, hate and shame. Those emotions are elicited by appraisal of current interpersonal status of the relationship with others. Even when emotions are not directly related to others they could still connected be connected to social aspects like when a person is afraid or anxious about what others think of him. Moreover, cultural aspects affect emotions significance. Appraisal theories assess personal goals and plans of the person in order to elicit appropriate emotion. Personal goals are culturally supplemented such as wealth and fame. This is also noticeable when looking at different cultures and how they experience different emotions in response to similar situations. Culture extends its effect on the display and the way of expression of emotions also.
+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/protect me!
+Guilt+++++++++++Self-blame+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Forgive me!
+Happiness+++++++Success+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Let’s celebrate!
+Hope+++++++++++ Potential for success++++++++++++++++++++Let’s keep on trying!
+Love+++++++++++ Desiring or participating in affection+++Be/stay my special ally! Let’s be intimate friends
+Sadness+++++++++++Irrevocable loss++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Comfort/reassure me!
+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.
@@ Line 107: / Line 134: @@
 Aitken, P. P. "Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974: 103, 240–244.
 Bartneck, Christoph. "Characters, Integrating the OCC Model of Emotions in Embodied." 2002.
+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." In Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169-2000. 1992.
@@ Line 138: / Line 167: @@
 Smith, C. A., and L. D. Kirby. "Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory." In Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, by A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.) K. R. Scherer, 121–138. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.