On the Genesis of Emotional Experience

1. On the Genesis of Emotional Experience What kind of an emotion of fear would be left, if the feelings neither of quickened heart-beats nor of shallow breathing, neither of trembling lips nor of weakened limbs, neither of goose-flesh nor of visceral stirrings, were present, it is quite impossible to think. -- William James (1884) Alex Genov, Ph.D. .

2. Overview of Research Program • Studying the genesis of feelings and their role in behavior. • Different levels of analysis: • physiological responses • expressive behavior • instrumental action • subjective experience

3. The Logic Behind the Research • Gist of Self-perception theory: We identify our own mental states (e.g.,attitudes, feelings) in the same way outside observers would identify our mental states, namely by inferring them from perceptions of our behavior and/or the situation.

4. The Logic Behind the Research • Basic experimental strategy: In a well-disguised manner, the researcher manipulates a behavior presumed to express a feeling and then asks participants to report on their subjective experience. Random assignment to experimental and control groups, control for experimenter demand, etc. facilitates claims for causation.

5. The Logic Behind the Research • Individual differences in the use of these two kinds of information: Previous research by Laird and others has repeatedly demonstrated the following: when asked to rate their emotional feelings after an experimental manipulation of their behavior, some people are influenced by cues from their behavior (personal cue responders) while others are influenced by cues from the situation (situational cue responders).

6. The Disguised Facial Expression Manipulation (DFEM) • Manipulation introduced as “studying the effect of facial muscle activity on memory for abstract pictures.” • Participants asked to contract various facial muscles thus adopting a “smile” or a “frown” expression. • At the same time they look at an abstract picture with either a “happy” or an “angry” title. • The title always contradicts the valence of the expression. • Participants report on their subjective experience using a visual analogue scale. • Measuring feelings is introduced as “controlling for the extraneous effects of random variations in mood.”

8. Emotion Rating Scale (version 1) Please describe how you are feeling now by making an “X” on the part of the line that best describes how strongly you feel each of these emotions: Don’t feel at all Feel very strongly Example SURPRISED I-----------X----------------------------------I Don’t feel at all Feel very strongly ANGRY I-----------------------------------------------I SURPRISED I-----------------------------------------------I SAD I-----------------------------------------------I SCARED I-----------------------------------------------I DISGUSTED I-----------------------------------------------I HAPPY I-----------------------------------------------I ANXIOUS I-----------------------------------------------I INTERESTED I-----------------------------------------------I

9. DFEM • Procedure Sequence: • “smile” 1; look at a picture called “Rip-off” for 20 seconds • fill out emotion rating scale • “frown” 1; look at a picture called “Spring” for 20 sec. • fill out emotion rating scale • “smile” 2; look at a picture called “Betrayal” for 20 sec. • fill out emotion rating scale • “frown” 2; look at a picture called “Dancing” for 20 sec. • fill out emotion rating scale

10. DFEM • Response Definition: • [(“happy” for smile 1) – (“happy” for frown 1)] + [(“angry” for frown 1) – (“angry” for smile 1)] = score 1 • [(“happy” for smile 2) – (“happy” for frown 2)] +[(“angry” for frown 2) – (“angry” for smile 2)] = score 2 • If (scores 1 AND 2) > 0 => cue response = personal • If (scores 1 OR 2) < or = 0 => cue response = situational Positive scores on both pairs of trials indicate that participants report feelings consistent with their facial expressions across the two pairs of trials. Such participants are assigned to the “personal” cue group. All others were assigned to “situational” cue group.

11. DFEM • These individual differences have been established most frequently in research on the effects of facial expressions and postures. • In addition, subjects whose feelings are more affected by their facial expressions of emotion: • are more responsive to the manipulation of their posture • are more empathetically correct in identifying the emotions of others when they imitate their expressions • change their attitudes more in the induced compliance procedure • conform less • are more sensitive to pain and tolerate less of it in the cold pressor test, and so on.

12. Autonomic Activity in Emotions • The Problem: Most authorities agree that the autonomic nervous system plays some role in determining the subjective experience of emotion. They disagree, however, on the exact nature of this role.

13. Introduction • View #1: Actual sympathetic activation is a necessary component of emotional experience and behavior, along with cognitions: • James -- “[a] purely disembodied human emotion is a nonentity” • Schachter & Singer – the two-factor theory • Zillmann – excitation transfer

14. Introduction • View #2: Actual sympathetic activation is not a necessary component of emotional experience and behavior, only cognitions matter: • Valins – cognitive representation of SA and the false feedback paradigm

15. Introduction Both views supported by extensive empirical data => A contradiction!

16. Introduction • Individual differences to the rescue: • Schacter’s epinephrine injection manipulation measures responsiveness to personal cues,while the “stooge” manipulation measures responsiveness to situational cues. • Valins’false feedback manipulation can be seen as measuring responsiveness to situational cues. • Therefore, Valins’ findings can be interpreted as supporting the cognitive component of Schachter’s theory, instead of contradicting the theory. • Valins did not test adequately for the role of the physiological component of the two-factor theory, i. e. actual SA. • Since, in general, groups of subjects have been compared, the effects of actual and believed SA may have occurred only in part of the group. • The present study tested this possibility in a factorial experiment.

17. Hypotheses: We expected: • In a single experiment to find evidence for the role of: • Actual SA and … • Cognitions about SAin emotional experience • Demonstrate individual differences in the role of actual and believed SA: • Different effects for personal and situational cue responders: • An increase in actual SA (indexed by HR and SCL) will lead to an increase in self-reported feelings of fear for personal cue responders but not for situational cue responders. • The belief of increased SA would lead to an increase in self-reported feelings of fear for both situational and personal cue responders.

18. Baseline physiological readings. The Disguised Facial Expression Manipulation. Four trials representing all combinations of high and low actual and believed SA. In each trial participants watched a film clip and described the co-occurring feelings. Measuring feelings of fear in response to four film clips. Baseline physiological readings. Measuring the effects of facial muscle activity on memory for abstract pictures. Measuring the effect of physical activity and film clips on various physiological indexes. Controlling for the extraneous effects of random changes in mood. Basic Elements of the Procedure and Cover Story

19. Baseline Physiological Readings • One minute HR and SCL: • HR measured using a photoplethysmograph. • SCL measured using constant voltage passed between two reusable silver-silver chloride sensors. • Autonomic activity measured using J & J I-330 modules and Unicomp software from the American Biotech Co. A 486 IBM- compatible computer was programmed to process physiological data by averaging them into 10-second intervals.

20. Disguised Facial Expression Manipulation A “smile” trial Rip-off

21. Belief of SA Manipulation –metronome clicks • During the initial instructions, we told participants the following: “One technical problem we’ve been having with the equipment is that the video input to the computer produces a sound artifact in the computer program, so your pulse rate will result in click from the hard drive. These clicks won’t sound very much like heart rate because the computer averages the beats, so they’ll sound a bit mechanical. Don’t pay attention to the clicks. We have tried to get rid of them but couldn’t figure out how.” These instructions were part of the cover story designed to convince participants that the clicks they were going to hear (actually metronome clicks) corresponded to their own heart rate.

22. Actual SA Manipulation – excitation transfer; counterbalancing • High-Low-High-Low • Peddle bike (HR 165% above baseline) • Rest and fill out questionnaire • Watch clip #1 (HR 140% above baseline) • Fill our emotion rating scale #1 • Fill out questionnaires • Watch clip #2 (HR at baseline) • Fill out emotion rating scale #2 • Repeat …

23. Actual SA Manipulation • Low-High-Low-High • Fill out questionnaires • Watch clip #1 (HR at baseline) • Fill out emotion rating scale #1 • Peddle bike (HR 165% above baseline) • Rest and fill out questionnaire • Watch clip #2 (HR 140% above baseline) • Fill out emotion rating scale #2 • Repeat …

24. Experimental Design Cue Subj. High A Low A High B Low B High B Low B 1 2 3 4 5 6 Personal Situational Actual SA = A Believed SA = B

25. Experimental Design

26. Results • Funnel Questionnaire: Based on their responses to the funnel questionnaire, 20 participants were excluded from the analyses because they had indicated awareness of the real purpose of the experiment, namely to study the effect of SA on emotional experience. A roughly equal number of personal (N = 9) and situational (N = 11) cue responders were excluded.

27. Results • DFEM: The DFEM resulted in classifying 31 participants in the “Personal cue response” category, and 39 participants in the “Situational cue response” category. The distribution of type of cue response is consistent with that found in previous research (e.g., Duclos et al., 1989; Duncan & Laird, 1980). All the analyses were done with the 22 unaware Personal cue responders and the 28 unaware Situational cue responders.

28. Results • Did the actual SA manipulation work? YES! • Mean HR in the exercise condition was significantly higher than mean HR in the no exercise condition, t (48) = 8.83, p < .001 (two-tailed). • Mean SCL in the exercise condition was significantly higher that mean SCL in the no exercise condition, t (48) = 2.73, p < .01 (two-tailed).

29. Results • Did the belief of SA affect actual SA? – NO! Mean HR in the high believed SA condition (M = 84.93, SD = 16.72) did not differ from mean HR in the low believed SA condition (M = 84.38, SD = 15.13), t (28) = .44, p = .66.

30. Results • Subjective Experience of Fear: An overall 4-way ANOVA was performed to test for main effects and interactions among two between-subjects factors, i.e. cue response and film clip order. No main effects were found for cue response, F (1, 42) = .03, p = .87, or for film clip order, F (3, 42)= .31, p = .82. There was no significant interaction as well. Film clip order was excluded from the analysis.

31. Results • Subjective Experience of Fear: The effects of the within-subjects factors, i.e. actual and believed SA, crossed with type of cue response, were tested using a 3-way ANOVA. Results indicated no significant main effects for any of the three variables. • Cue response: F (1, 48) = .05, p = .82. (Overall, personal cue responders did not differ from situational cue responders in their self-report of fear) • Believed SA: F (1, 48) = .15, p = .70 • Actual SA: F (1, 48) = .02, p = .88. (Believed and actual SA, taken separately, did not result in differential fear ratings)

32. Results • Subjective Experience of Fear: However, there was a highly significant actual SA x believed SA x (cue response) interaction, F (1, 48) = 7.63, p = .008, ² = .14, observed power = .77.

33. Results When participants were highly aroused, high believed SA had a discounting effect for personal cue responders and a augmenting effect for situational cue responders. In other words, when personal cue responders experienced high actual SA and heard fast clicks indicating high SA, they reported less fear than when they heard slower clicks indicating less SA. On the other hand, when situational cue responders experienced high actual SA and heard faster clicks, they reported more fear. This effect was not observed in the low actual SA condition.

34. Results To test for the significance of the effect of believed SA, two mixed 2-way ANOVAs were performed, one for the high and one for the low actual SA conditions. Type of cue response was the between-subjects factor and actual SA was the within-subjects factor. Within the high actual SA condition there was a significant (type of cue response) x (believed SA) interaction, F (1, 48) = 8.14, p = .006, ² = .15. No significant effects were found within the low actual SA condition, F (1, 48) = 1.58, p = .21.

35. Results • Correlation between actual HR and intensity of subjective experience * p < .05 † p = .08, two-tailed The difference between the two correlation coefficients in the exercise condition is significant, z = 3.28, p = .001.

36. Conclusions • Valins’s claim that cognitions about SA alone influence feelings was not supported. • There was support for Schachter’s two-factor theory incorporating both autonomic and situational determinants. • The Valins effect can be conceptualized as a response to situational cues and thus a sub set of the two-factor theory. • There are individual differences in responsiveness to both types of cues: • Positive correlation between manipulated actual HR and feelings of fear for personal cue responders only (predicted). • The situational cue of believed SA affected both types of cue responders (predicted) in different ways (not predicted): • Valins-type effect for situational cue responders (predicted) • Discounting effect for personal cue responders (not predicted)

37. Discussion • The unexpected interaction, or the finding that bodily cues on some level affect both types of cue responders. Explanation? • Foster et al.’s (1998) two-stage theory of arousal and attraction applied to the present case: • Actual SA automatically affects feelings for everybody. • At a later stage, individuals integrate additional information from the situation. Here this additional information was presented via the false HR feedback. • Laird’s Cue Response theory extended to SA: • The additional situational information affected both types of cue responders differently: • For situational cue responders the situational cue of believed fast HR augmented feelings of fear – a Valins-type effect. • For personal cue responders the same information lead to a discounting of their feelings of fear – a misattribution effect consistent with previous research: • Nisbett & Schachter, 1966 • Duncan & Laird, 1988

38. So What? • Implications of our results for: • Emotion theory: • Our model of emotional experience presents a promising way of integrating elements of James’ theory, Schachter’s theory, Valins’ position, and Laird’s individual difference approach. • Real life: • Combating anxiety with beta blockers would work better for personal cue responders. • Placebo treatments and talk therapy for anxiety would work better for situational cue responders. • Emotional side effects of beta blockers may be underestimated because they would be observed only for personal cue responders.

39. Future Directions • Do personal cue responders simply produce more bodily cues (e.g., physiological reactions, expressive behavior, etc.)? • Are they more sensitive to such cues? • Are they more attentive to such cues? • All of the above? • The role of cognition: • the nature of situational cues • factors affecting their strength • mechanisms through which they affect emotional experience and behavior

40. Individual Differences in Pain Perception • The purpose of this study was to apply self-perception theory to pain perception. • A substantial number of studies have shown that people differ consistently across a wide variety of feelings and behaviors in responsiveness to their own personal, or bodily, activities. • Similar differences seem likely to exist in responses to painful stimuli. • This study investigated how individual differences in the use of personal vs. situational cues affects sensitivity and tolerance to pain.

41. Hypothesis People who are more responsive to personal cues will be more sensitive to pain cues, and hence in the cold pressor task would detect pain sooner and would be able to tolerate less of it.

42. Choice of Method • Important to separate “personal” from “situational” cues … • The cold pressor: • Produces substantial increases autonomic responses (providing strong personal cues) • Usually not expected to be very painful (providing a situational cue of low pain)

43. Procedure • Baseline HR and SCL measures • Cold pressor • DFEM

44. Results • Pain expectations: • In a pilot study, 19 people were asked how much they thought immersing their hand in ice-cold water would hurt, on a 4 point scale from "none" to “very much". The modal response was the next to lowest, “a little.” • In addition, analysis of the pain expectation of the main sample in the experiment (N= 38), taken afterthe cold pressor test, revealed the same pattern. That is, 24 out of 38 participants retrospectively reported that, coming in to the experiment, they had expected the cold pressor test to hurt “a little” or less.

45. Results • Pain expectations: ² = .06 9 6 2 2 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much

46. Results • Physiological reactions to the cold pressor test: HR After immersion in the ice-cold water, HR increased significantly (M = 89.3, SD = 15.4 bpm) as compared to baseline (M = 81.7, SD = 14.7) for all participants, F (1, 36) = 31.9, p<.001, Eta Square =.47. The HR x Cue interaction was not significant indicating that there were no differences between the personal and situational groups F (1, 36) = 1.01, p = .32.

47. Results • Physiological reactions to the cold pressor test: SCL After immersion in the ice cold water, SCL increased significantly (M = 9.3, SD = 4.8 micromhos) as compared to baseline (M = 7.8, SD = 4.0) for all participants, F (1, 33) = 27.4, p < .001, Eta Sq. = .45.The SCL x Cue interaction was not significant indicating that there were no differences between the personal and situational groups F (1, 33) = .25, p = .62.

48. Results • Pain detection time (sec): Personal cue responders reported detecting pain significantly earlier (M = 14.1 seconds, SD = 7.4) than did the situational cue responders (M = 32.5, SD = 23.0), F (1,36) = 8.22, p=.007, Eta Square = .20.

49. Results • Pain tolerance time (sec): The personal cue group tolerated pain for a much shorter time (M = 52.5 seconds, SD = 50.6) than the situational group (M = 97.9 seconds, SD = 76.0), F (1,36)=4.12, p=.05, Eta Square=.11

50. Conclusions • Results of the present study indicate that participants who were more likely to feel happy when they adopted smiles and angry when they adopted frowns also reported feelings of pain earlier, and tolerated painful stimulation for a shorter length of time. These results are just what a self-perception theory analysis of pain experience predicted, and suggest that differences in pain experience may be related to more general differences in the processes which generate feelings.