blog test. really good tool.

Emotion is a state

A person is angry.

A state is only at a certain time. He isn't an angry person always.

It means the person who is angry is angry at somthing. As oppose to a mood where the person may just be an angry person at the time.

Do people have the physiological change first and then emotion or does the emotion come first then the change physiologically?

It is not known but people question whether if you are happy do you work better or have better cognitive performance?

Because they are so emotional.

6 emotions. Anger, fear, disgust, surprise, happiness & sadness.

No matter were you are culurally, all of these basic 6 emotions will be recognised.

Paul Eckman

Neurocultural Theory

He says that the reason why all 6 emotions are recognised is because they are all hardwired in. He thinks whenever an emotion is triggered because of a stimulus it sets off a prewired neuroprogramme that produces a subjective experience of emotion & a specific psychological and expressive change.

This involves the link between the display of emotin. Cultures that frown on certain emotions may dampen the display time

1991. He talks about "Relational Meaning"

He argues in order to know how an event happens and a person reacts you need to know th subjectve meaning of the event to them. What does the goal scored, mean to them.

He says thmoton are not caused by events or by intra-psychic factors like psyiological change

1988. The laws of emotions.

The Law of concern. Emotions arise in response to events. They are more intense if they relate to the persons goals, motives or concerns. The other is law of comparative feeling. The intensity of the event depends on the relationship of the event and some frame of reference against it.

Some think emotions reflect feelings communicating iteral psyiological state. Others think expressions are indicative of social motives.

1990. Thought that facial expressions reflect emotional state.

Participants watched a positive or negative video. They reported their ubjeexperience, what emotions they felt and ow intense they were

Video tape facial expressions using FACS. Facial Action Coding system. People who showed more smiling more reported happier & those who have more negative expressions reported less happy.

1991.

Participants viewed a pleasant video in 4 different conditions.

1. alone, 2, alone but believing fiend was close by, 3. alone but friend doing sae exeiment in next oom 4. sat together with friend.

Measured smiling with ECT electromyography. Smiling increased as experiment became more social. They didn't feel happier.

Facial expressions have little to do with what we're feeling. He thinks social motives are designd to communicate social motives. Smiling is affected by context more than what is felt.

1995.

Same as Fridlund but funny movie and very funny movie. Measured using EMG. Skin conductance. Self reported emotions. Also put person with either frind or stranger.

Found that intensity of smiling is affected by sociality of context. However affected more by funniness of film. Only if with friends though. Not with strangers.

Electromyogrphy. Emotion expression influenced by emotional state. Sal context.Relationship to audience.

Pride, embarrassment, shame, guilt, humiliation

A sene of self is essential

Morally, these emotions arise from evaluation of own behaviour against moral standard

In self-regulatory sense. Provide critical feedback to self about own thoughts, intetions and behviour. Regulates social behaviour

Baumeister 1994. Guilt. We feel bad after something because it guilt motivates relationship enhancing behaviour,. It is distinct from shame.

Keltner 1999

You have to analyse at 4 levels. 1.intrapersonal level 2. interpersonal level 3. group level. 4. cultural level

. its psyiological, cognitive aspects of emotion. informs individual about social conditions. as in you're trembling you may need to leg it prepare indivdual to repsnd to opportunities.

emotions expressions help us to know other peoples emotions, beliefs and intentions. This allows us to adjust as much as we need.
Give an exaple. reciprocal emotions n oters. if we see they are distrssed it helps us to respond. in teh question

Emotions help group members co-ordinate towards shared or collecive goals. Helps to define who is who, defines goups boundaries and identity group members.They hlp define and and negotiate group roles and status. emotion help group members negotiate group related problems

important to how we maintain cultural identities.Emotions help children learn cultural norms and values

How do you get from events to emotion? Event occurs.Persons appraisal of event. What it mean to him. On basis of that subjective understanding they get emotion. Emotion is rooted in appraisal. Key to understanding social dimension.

Strack 1988

Part of what we feel is beause of the facial feedback hypthesis

Feedback from our physical systems. Muscular feedback. We feel happy because e smile. The facial expression affets emotional experience or behviour.

Participants watch cartoon while holing pen between mouth. 1/2 between lips. 1/2 between teeth. Between teeth can smile whereas you can't between lips.

Much stronger humour reactions when held pen between teeth instead of lips.

Theory of Emotional Contagion. "Smile it's contagious"

involves physical mimcry. You mirror emotions because you auto copy it outside of oncious control. When you copy it. You feel the emotons. This is called the primitie process.

Mass hysteria, panic, angr n crowd situatons, religious clts, collective emotion.

His is notion of contagion in crowd situations. We lose our minds andbecome very susceptible to any emotion.

Found that mimcry increased in close relationships. 2001. "social appraisal". We don't just appraise events. We appraise other people's reactions to appraised events.

Ambiguousevents where people don't know how to act.

Social appraisal influences 2 pects of emotional behaviour.When you re-appraise the event as funnier if other peopl laugh very hard. Shown how you may laugh harder hn other people do.

Evidence in favour of social appraisal.

Participant bring friend along. Read scenario evoking happiness, adness, aniety & anger. Manipulated so friend co-experiing event or he was bserving. Also whether frend was consistent in emotion. They measure their emotion intensity felt. Self reported. Scial appraial , how pleasnat to be ith friend, desire to talk about event with friend after event.

Found sadness and happiness afected by friends' expresion )ut not co-experience. They felt sadder when friend sad. they felt happy when friend hppy. Social appraisal increased when friend expressed consistent emotion. More pleasant wih friend n both happy an sadsituations This means social appraisal accounted for effe

Christine Evers 2005. Found social appraisal effects anger. 2 experiments, essay aand hot sauce give out.

genders split. Told perform 2 experiments. Writing ability. Supposedly paired with other participant in other roomNotthe case. Everyone write essay. Self score it. Everyone think they do average.All get bad negative feedback. Stay in same pairs second part. Dish out type of sauce an how much.

Some told would meet fellow participant. Some told wouldn't. No difference in anger vs men and womn. Gender depen on sociality ondition. Mn dishd it out. Women idn't. When weren't metting didn't dish it out for either.

Anger at feedback. Hot sauce allocation.

.Parkinon 1996. Emotions directed intrinscally to audience. Emotions make claims about how e feel about an event. Make it clear how others should orient towards the sae event

Van Kleef ()2004. Negotiation game vs computer. Sell mobiles. Arrive in pairs. Everyone assined role of seller (hey don't know hat). They get preprogrammed responses. Decide what to demand from buyer. Higher price bettr reward in RL. Have reah agreement after 6 rounds.

1 condition angry communications. Happy other, No Emotion other. Actual offer same though. Angry receive better deal than no emotion.

Smith 1993. attitude / cognitive evaluation of outgroup. not informative about rane o negative reaction possible. Prejudie is an emotional reaction. Not an emotion.

Doosje (1998)

Personal guilt.

Can we feel guilt about wrongs doe by our ingroup

Presented duth participants 3 conditons. 1 faourble, 2 ambigious, 3 unfavourable. Testedfor ngroup idetification. Low identify felt more guilt for ambiguous, nd close o unfavourable. Low identification felt very guilty for unfavourable but not for tohers.

Gordijn (2001)

What did Gordjin 2001 do? Unfair treatment of other university. Describe harsh treatment, fees, work, etc. 2 groups, students tested. Manipuated salient self-category. 1 condition was your ingroup al studentrs, othr was diff uni why shouold we care. When described as ingroup stdents felt rally ngry. Not so much as outgroup

We influence & are infuencdf by ther emotions. Emotions are inherentlycommunicative. Eotions don't just reflect personal concerns.

Campbell 1965

Whengroups are in a position of negative interdependence over valued resources. (more for them less for us thing)

nfavourable attitues & images of the outgroup. Increase in solidarity of ingroup. Change in organisation an practised within group.

People argue that negative interdependence and cometition isn't necessary. Intrgrop competition became apparent in sherrffs boy camp experiment before interentionof researhers

1976 Competition can't be the only eason for extreme negtive outgoup perceptions. Intergroup status and power are a way groups can vary.

It arises when we see our ingrup as being different and worse off in some wa to the outgroup (crosby 1976) it depends on the social comparion. the motives are to redress balnce with outgroup.

Fraternal (group based) vs egoistic (individual level) Fraternal is a better predicto of intergroup action.

It ca result in outgroup favouritim.

Tajfel 1971.

Minimal group ituation. All hae is one category. You add in eements to find out what are minimal conditions to create discrimination or hostililty.

Participants putin group via coin toss or painting preference. No istory between participants and no future. No vested interest as a resul

Anonymity between group members.Haveto gie reward to ingroup and outrgroup using pairs. Mot adopted fair strategy reward system. Significant use of ingroup bias thugh and maximum differntitation technique when told it was outgoup. Discrimination emerges even when no investment

There is no conflict of interests apar from categor membership.

Participants define themselves in erms of available group mmbership. They caegorise hmselves. They identify themselves wih th grupThey then compre themselves and assue motive, desires to havepositively distinct social identity and his requires positive differentiatin.

It is importnat tht you realise the tw are tnot the same.

Minigroup study. Divided into 2groups of thinkers. Ratepicture of other groups at time 1 and time 2. Time 1 told who prodced paintng. Time 2 told competition. Judged by jury. Time 2 differentiation lower whe no group competition involved. They do differentition at tme 1. Only continues if competition

Conitive eleent - aware of social categoristion. evaluative element - value attacehd to group membership. 3 affective elemtn - emotional significance.

What is the interpersonal intergroup continuum? Purely interpersonal and interroup behaviour aron extremes of bipolar continuum. Most intreactions take place somewhere in teh middle of this ontinuum.

ajfel 1979. How does social competition emerge. Group membrs identify with ingroup. Surrounding context allows comparison with other roups. Emphasises mportanceof social structue and intergroup sttus. How do group members react when ingroup has low status?

Combines psychological and sociomotivation factors. It ccounts for ingroup favouritism and conflict. Shown when groups want to challenge illegitimate lw sttus position. Outgroup favouritism shown when ingroup has legitimate low sttus so want to join another group.

Le Bon 1897

Individuals in crowd lose sense of identity along wit control and responsibiliy for action. Crowd mebers becom susceptible to any passing idea or motion. This comes from our racial unconscious - a primitive substrateof our mind

Ideas pass through crowd making crowd behaviour primitive and meaningless.

Account of crowd behaviour is decontextusalised. Talks about actions of crowds in isolation from social context.No mention of grievances, conflicts or other groups involved.

Because itassumes theoretically that the individual self is unitary and the only bsis for controlled , rational action.

Beause it denies he voice of the crowd. This theory justifies represion by aying that all crowds are dangerous.Also removes responsibility of authority for blame and puts it on he nature of the rowd itself.

When a member of a crowd there is a lessening of individual ability to think ratonall. while his more prmitve impuses are elecited along with others in crowd.

Floyd Allport

First of you talk about goup fallacy. No psychology of groups that isn't psychology of indiviuals. Individul acts how he would anyway, just more. Individuals learn from learned or conditioned response patterns. These responses are accentuated when energy is applied to system e.g. crowd.

It eads to breadown of controlled response patterns and reverts to instinct. Instinct of struggle becomes dominant thereforeeading to tendency to destroy obstructions which do not satisfy instincts.

Social identity theory (Tajfel 1979) distinction between personal and social identity. Slef categorisation theory - we self stereotype, take on norms, values, collective behaviour is identity driven and meaningful, shaped and constrained by consensual norms within the group.

Reicher 1984. Study of bristol riot 1980

Clear limits to crowd actions. Police, financial institutions and shops owned by outsiders attacked

E.g. emergence of voilence. Development of a riot. Who is the leader in a crwd and whty? Social identities always obvious in a crowd? Can identities be shaped by collective action?

Identities in crowds are nt fixed or obvous. There are divisions within crowds between those ho are more or les confrontational. As confrontation with police begins sense of shared identity develops. Unifies crowd members.